Part single storey, part two storey side wraparound extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 22 April 2026 by P Eggleton BSc(Hons) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date:05 May 2026 Appeal Ref: 6006254 78 Birchwood Road, Middlesbrough TS7 8DQ • 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 Steven Leach against the decision of the Middlesbrough Borough Council. • The application reference is 25/0353/FUL. • The development proposed is a part single storey, part two storey side wraparound extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 3. The proposal would result in a single storey extension to the rear; a two storey extension to the side to replace the garage; and a single storey extension to the front, across the side extension and the existing entrance to the house. There would also be changes to the front garden. The council has no concerns with regard to the rear extension. 4. The council have raised concerns with regard to the large format windows within the ground floor of the dwelling and proposed for the extension. These represent a more modern intervention and as they follow the alignment of the windows above, although differing from others in the area in form and materials, would not materially alter the overall experience of the dwelling from the public realm. 5. The side extension would be of a greater width than the garage it would replace. The very limited set back from the frontage and the marginally lower roof height, together with the width proposed, would result in the extension being an overly dominant addition that would detract from the appearance of the dwelling. The side elevation, although set down from the adjacent wide grassed verge, would extend very close to it. It would offer very little relief within its form or detailing. This would add to the dominance of the new works and given the corner position of the dwelling, would increase its impact. 6. The greater surfacing of the front garden would detract from the appearance of the property and the wider area. It is not clear from the plans that there is any significant potential for soft landscaping. As the side access to the property would be lost, bin storage would have to take place in the front garden. Although a screen Appeal Decision: 6006254 2 of some form, as suggested, could be required by condition, there is nothing within the details to suggest that this is likely to be a positive feature. This adds to my concerns that the proposal has not been well thought out. Overall, the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area and would represent poor design. 7. The design shortcomings result in conflict with policies DC1(b) and CS5 (c & f) of the Core Strategy 2008 which seek high standards of design to ensure that development is well integrated within the immediate area. These policies remain consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework which is clear that development that is not well designed should be refused. The emerging local plan includes similar policies. 8. Reference has been made to the council’s Urban Design Supplementary Planning Document 2013 (SPD). This sets out guidance with regard to design generally and includes specific references to different elements of householder extensions. The proposal does not follow this guidance, particularly that the first-floor side extension should be set back from the building line by one metre with an associated reduction in the height of the extension relative to the original roof; and that the side extension should be no more than half the width of the original dwelling to prevent the property becoming out of proportion. It also fails to have regard to the advice regarding corner plots as it seeks to avoid blank facades. 9. The appellant suggests that the design guidance within the SPD is advisory rather than prescriptive and is intended to inform design decisions rather than being applied rigidly where site-specific circumstances justify a different approach. Whilst the guidance could be set aside if an alternative high quality design was proposed, that satisfied the development plan policies, this is not the case with regard to this proposal. 10. There are other similar extensions in the area although many have retained the garage and generally have not resulted in near fully surfaced front gardens or a lack of access to the rear. Similarly, whilst there are exposed two storey gables, the original design of the estate clearly sought to reduce the impact of these by setting lower development, such as garages, to the sides of properties. In any event, this proposal has to be considered on its own individual merits having regard to its corner position. 11. I am mindful that the appellant is seeking greater space standards than can be achieved by following the SPD requirements and is also seeking to improve and invest in this property. No objections to the proposal have been received. Whilst these are matters that weigh in favour of allowing alterations to the property, they are not sufficient to outweigh my concerns. I therefore dismiss the appeal. Peter Eggleton INSPECTOR