Single storey rear extension to provide larger open plan kitchen/ dining room. Creation of utility room with new backdoor and window on side elevation

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 24 March 2026 by Elizabeth Davies BSc (Hons) MISEP, CEnv Decision by L McKay MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 10th June 2026 Appeal Ref: 6006031 35 Chestnut Avenue, Oxford, Oxfordshire OX3 9JJ • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr G Waters against the decision of Oxford City Council. • The application Ref is 25/03410/FUL. • The development proposed is a single storey rear extension to provide larger open plan kitchen/ dining room. Creation of utility room with new backdoor and window on side elevation. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal Procedure 2. The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the appeal property and the local area. Reasons for the Recommendation 4. The appeal property is a two storey semi-detached dwelling located on Chestnut Avenue. This part of Chestnut Avenue is characterised by semi-detached pairs of dwellings, set back from the road, with small gardens or driveway parking to the front. The rear gardens back onto Bury Knowle Park which provides a sense of openness and space beyond the gardens. The appeal property has already been extended at the rear and it is proposed to build a single storey extension off the existing rear extension. 5. The proposed rear extension would maintain a gap to the sides of the plot and the pitched roof has been designed to match the existing ground floor. However, despite this and the fairly modest scale of the proposal, it would be built off an existing extension and as a result the overall ground floor depth would give the dwelling a markedly bulky appearance. The result would be an extension that would not respect the form and scale of the original dwelling. 6. The proposed extension would also extend the property much further into the rear garden compared with neighbouring dwellings. In the immediate context, where properties have been extended, the rear building line appears more consistent with the existing rear elevations of the appeal dwelling. The difference would be Appeal Decision 6006031 2 pronounced given the close spatial relationship between the properties and gardens on this part of Chestnut Avenue. The extension would disrupt the proportions of the modest original dwelling and appear out of keeping, even in the context of the varied designs styles of neighbouring extensions and relatively long gardens. 7. Whilst the appellant has sought to demonstrate that there is variation in the rear building line along this side of Chestnut Avenue, the examples highlighted at No. 49, No. 51, No. 57 and No. 59 Chestnut Avenue are some distance from the appeal property. The examples provided are also detached properties with larger plot sizes where more sizeable rear extensions are likely to be less harmful. Consequently, these examples are not comparable to the appeal proposal and do not justify the harm identified. 8. Views of the rear of the property from Bury Knowle Park are limited and the proposed extension would not be highly visible in the public realm. However, it would be evident in private views from neighbouring rear gardens. In any event, development should respect its local context and character. 9. On this basis, the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the appeal property and the local area. It would therefore be contrary to Policy DH1 of the Oxford Local Plan 2036 (June 2020) which seeks to ensure developments are of a high quality design that creates or enhances local distinctiveness. Other Matters 10. There were no objections received at the planning application stage and there are areas in which the proposals would be acceptable, such as the materials and the effect on the amenity of neighbouring properties, flooding and highways. However, these are neutral factors in the planning balance. 11. I note the appellant’s comments in relation to the pavilion building located close to the appeal property in Bury Knowle Park. However, this is a detached commercial building in a separate setting from the appeal property and is not comparable to the appeal proposal, and does not justify the harm I have identified. Conclusion and Recommendation 12. The proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no other considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, which outweigh this finding. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. Elizabeth Davies APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 13. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. L McKay INSPECTOR