Removal of an existing conservatory and the construction of a two- storey rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 21 May 2026 by John D Allan BA(Hons) BTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 5 June 2026 Appeal Ref: 6007398 24 Birch Avenue, Gloucester, Gloucestershire, GL4 4NL • 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 Rhys Wood-Stratton against the decision of Gloucester City Council. • The application Ref is 25/01168/FUL. • The development proposed is the removal of an existing conservatory and the construction of a two- storey rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the removal of an existing conservatory and the construction of a two-storey rear extension at 24 Birch Avenue, Gloucester, Gloucestershire, GL4 4NL in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/01168/FUL, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans: Site Location Plan at scale 1:1250 and Drg Nos 5084- 01-EE, 5084-02-EP Rev A, 5084-03-PP Rev A, 5084-04-PE Rev A, 5084-05- EBP and 5084-06-PBP. 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. 4) The extension hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the window at first-floor on the side elevation facing 26 Birch Avenue has been fitted with obscured glazing, and no part of that window that is less than 1.7 metres above the floor of the room in which it is installed shall be capable of being opened. Once installed the obscured glazing shall be retained thereafter. In addition, notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no windows/dormer windows other than that expressly authorised by this permission shall be constructed above ground level on the flank elevations of the two-storey extension hereby permitted. Appeal Decision 6007398 2 Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposal upon the living conditions at 26 Birch Avenue, with particular regard to visual impact. Reasons 3. The appeal relates to a two-storey, semi-detached dwelling with a hipped roof set within a residential neighbourhood comprising similar type and aged properties. No 24 has an existing single-storey conservatory extension across part of the dwelling’s rear elevation and adjacent to the shared side boundary with the attached property at No 22. This would be replaced with a two-storey extension that would continue as a rear projection of the dwelling’s existing flank wall and roof to a depth of 4m, and which would span approximately half the width of the property, with a single-storey flat-roof infill extension adjacent to No 22 to an equivalent depth. 4. I have been directed to two nearby examples where similar styled two-storey rear extensions have been approved at Nos 34 and 36 Birch Avenue. These were visible to me during my site visit from a vantage point within the rear garden of the appeal property, where it was evident that this form of addition is part of the area’s evolved character. Furthermore, I note that in both cases, planning permission was granted by the Council post adoption of their Home Extensions Guide Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) in 2008, including a further example at 20 Birch Avenue, as has been pointed out by the Council in their officer’s report. 5. In this case, the Council are concerned that the two-storey element of the proposal would appear significantly overbearing and harmful when viewed from the patio space nearest and to the rear of the unattached neighbouring property at No 26. 6. I observed during my visit that there is an almost uniform spacing between neighbouring unattached properties along this stretch of Birch Avenue amounting to the width of a side pedestrian access for each dwelling. The Council give a dimension of 1.2m between the flank wall of No 24 and the common shared side boundary with No 26. I am unable to discern any meaningful difference in the relationship between the appeal property and No 26, and those equivalent where extensions have been approved in the past at Nos 20, 34 and 36 and their respective neighbouring properties. 7. At a depth of 4m beyond the rear wall of the original dwelling, the Council point out that this would go beyond the 3.5m depths of the extensions approved at Nos 20, 34 and 36. Be that as it may, the two-storey rear extension proposed at No 24 would continue the dwelling’s existing eaves line and would be topped with a hipped roof with a subservient ridge height. As a consequence, its mass and form would be appropriately domestic in scale and proportionate to the host dwelling. I find nothing about its appearance that would be uncharacteristically high, sheer, or unduly featureless. 8. The Council accepts that the two-storey rear extension would sit outside of a 45- degree splay taken from the nearest ground floor window at No 26 in both plan and elevation. It therefore satisfies the 45-degree rule set out within section 2 of the SPD when considering the impact of an extension upon neighbours. Furthermore, during my visit I was able to view the appeal site from the rear garden of No 26. I observed a slight increase in levels between the gardens and building thresholds of Appeal Decision 6007398 3 Nos 24 and 26, with No 26 sitting on marginally higher ground due to the topography of the area. 9. When all of this is considered, along with the separation distance that would exist between the extension and the patio space to the rear of No 26, together with the open nature of the rear gardens in general along this part of Birch Avenue, I am satisfied that there would be no impact upon the living conditions at No 26 that would be significant or that would be visually harmful. In these circumstances, I am unable to identify any conflict with the aims and objectives of the SPD, or with Policy SD14 of the Gloucester, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury Joint Core Strategy (2017) or Policies A1 and A9 of the Gloucester City Plan (2023) as far as between them they seek to secure a quality in all development, including extensions to dwellings, that avoids any significant adverse impacts upon neighbouring occupiers. Conditions 10. In the event of the appeal succeeding the Council has suggested four conditions. In addition to the standard time limit condition, a condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans is necessary for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. A further condition is necessary to ensure that the development is carried out in materials to match the existing in order to safeguard the character and appearance of the area. In order to safeguard the privacy of neighbouring occupiers, a condition is necessary to control the nature of the glazing in the new proposed first-floor flank window, and to control any further first-floor windows within the flank walls of the two-storey extension. Conclusion 11. For the reasons given above, the appeal is allowed. John D Allan INSPECTOR