Proposed first floor extension to detached house

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 1 May 2026 by Andrew Fulford BSc MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 02 July 2026 Appeal Ref: 6006450 2 Woodhall Drive, Littleover, Derby, Derbyshire DE23 4RS • 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 S Sahota against the decision of Derby City Council. • The application Ref is 25/01232/FUL. • The development is a proposed first floor extension to detached house. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 3. The appeal site is located in a residential area which consists of detached two- storey dwellings which are generally quite uniform in appearance. The appeal property is sited on a prominent corner plot, and its design is reflective of its immediate surroundings. 4. The appeal property includes a long, attached single‑storey garage set back from the main frontage but positioned close to the side boundary, giving it an existing degree of prominence in the street scene. The proposal seeks to extend above the full length of this garage, resulting in a notably substantial form. Owing to the garage’s elongated footprint, the first‑floor addition would appear disproportionately long and visually ungainly. 5. The increased height and massing would amplify the garage’s prominence within the street. In addition, the extension would present a largely blank first‑floor side elevation, broken only by a single small window. This would offer little visual interest and relate poorly to the character of Pritchett Drive and most notably the adjacent property No 11. 6. Whilst the gable end roof design matches the host dwelling it does not tie in appropriately with the original property, giving the impression of a separate dwelling rather than a proportionately sized house extension. The extent of the set-back adds to this poor relationship and would result in an extension that would appear as an incoherent and incongruous addition. 7. My attention has been drawn to two examples of first‑floor extensions on corner plots in the local area. However, both relate to dwellings with designs and Appeal Decision 6006450 2 extension relationships that differ from the appeal scheme. They also do not share a comparable vernacular context or surrounding built form. As such, they are not directly comparable to the proposal and do not alter my judgement on the appeal. 8. The proposal by virtue of its siting, massing and detailed design the extension would be unacceptably harmful to the character and appearance of the area. It would conflict with Policies CP3 and CP4 of the Derby City Local Plan: Part 1: Core Strategy (January 2017) and saved Policy H16 of the adopted City of Derby Local Plan Review (January 2006) (LPR). Amongst other matters, these policies seek to deliver high quality design that makes a positive contribution towards the character, distinctiveness and identity of neighbourhoods. 9. Policy GD5 of the adopted City of Derby LPR (January 2006) has been cited on the Council’s Decision Notice. This policy is titled ‘Amenity’ and addresses matters relating to the living conditions of the occupiers of an application site and the surrounding area. Given that the Council’s refusal reason relates only to the effect of the proposals on the character and appearance of the area it is not considered that this policy is determinative in the case. Policy GD5 will therefore not be considered further within my assessment. Other Matters 10. The appellant has indicated that the proposal would not adversely impact on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, would create an acceptable living environment for the intended occupiers and retain adequate off parking. Whilst these points are accepted the lack of harm in these areas does not outweigh the substantial, permanent harm to the character and appearance of the area. Conclusion 11. I conclude that the proposal would conflict with the development plan and there are no material considerations that indicate that the development should be determined otherwise than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. Andrew Fulford INSPECTOR