Erection of three-storey rear extension and single-storey front extension with associated works

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 11 May 2026 by R Standfield BSc(Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 21 July 2026 Appeal Ref: 6007748 Peregrine House, 19 Clearwater Village, Lower Mill Lane, Somerford Keynes, Cirencester, Gloucestershire GL7 6FJ • 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 Mike Yiannis against the decision of Cotswold District Council. • The application Ref is 25/04037/FUL. • The development proposed is erection of three-storey rear extension and single-storey front extension with associated works. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed insofar as it relates to the single storey front extension. 2. The appeal is allowed insofar as it relates to the three storey rear extension and planning permission is granted for erection of three storey rear extension at Peregrine House, 19 Clearwater Village, Lower Mill Lane, Somerford Keynes, Cirencester, Gloucester GL7 6FJ in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/04037/FUL, and the plans submitted with it, so far as relevant to that part of the development hereby permitted and subject to the attached schedule. Preliminary Matters 3. The council’s description of development on the decision notice varies from the application form by consolidating the rear extensions on each floor into a single three storey rear extension. The appellant agreed to the change and the amended description is used in the banner above. 4. During consideration of the planning application, amended plans were submitted omitting a balcony area to the roof of the front extension. I have considered the appeal on the basis of the revised plans. 5. The council have referred to Policy L4 of the Draft National Planning Policy Framework (2025) (dNPPF) in the decision notice. The dNPPF does not constitute Government policy or guidance as it may be subject to change before the final document is published, however it may be treated as a material consideration in the determination of appeals. In this instance, draft Policy L4 is consistent with the approach of the Local Plan policies, but in itself has not been determinative in this appeal. Main Issue 6. The council’s reason for refusal relates to the proposed front extension only and it is clear from its submissions that the council does not have any concerns about the proposed rear extension. On this basis, the main issue is the effect of the Appeal Decision 6007748 2 proposed front extension on the character and appearance of the property and its surrounding area. Reasons 7. The Lower Mill Estate is a private development of holiday dwellings set around a number of artificially created lakes as part of the wider Cotswold Water Park. The estate is gated and provides some on-site facilities and recreation opportunities for the benefit of occupiers. Clearwater Village is a sub-area of the estate, and the appeal site is positioned on a small peninsula which forms a courtyard of properties that back on to Somerford Lagoon. 8. The dwellings at this location are detached, positioned close to one another, and front onto a landscaped internal area with no individual boundary treatments or division of land. A pathway provides pedestrian access to each dwelling, and a single storey storage building is positioned centrally. Planting and grassed areas extend throughout in keeping with the verdant appearance of the wider estate. 9. The form of dwellings within the vicinity is mixed. Several properties are gable fronted and constructed of stone blocks and roof tiles, demonstrating strong references to the Cotswold vernacular building form. Others, including the appeal site, feature vertical timber cladding and glazing used as design features and partial cat slide roofs of profiled metal sheeting. Whilst there are variations in the form of the front elevations including box windows and horizontal door canopies, none feature any significant projection. 10. The appeal property marks a step change in the building line with no’s 20, 21 and 22 set forward of no’s 16, 17, 18 and 19 Clearwater Village. The proposed front extension would bring the building line closer to that of no. 20 but the change in angle and the position of the central storage building, means that the appeal site visually relates to no’s 16, 17 and 18 and the front extension would be significantly and prominently forward of those established building lines. 11. Despite the physical proportions of the extension being subservient to the host dwelling, the proposed front extension would be visually prominent within its context. Its block form, scale and siting forward of the primary elevation would be incongruous against the openness and existing built context as described. It would also necessitate the removal of a significant proportion of a landscaped area to the front of the dwelling containing a mature shrub tree and bushes, the loss of which would exacerbate the visual harm. 12. The proposed use of timber cladding to match the existing dwelling would not be sufficient to mitigate the impact in this instance. 13. As I observed during my site visit, other areas of the estate feature differing building forms and designs although all are contemporary in their approach. The examples from the wider site submitted as part of the appeal, show box-like structures with flat roofs. Whilst some have front projections, they appear to be in their original designed form, with the projection matching the overall form of the building. In addition, the differing styles of buildings are grouped into distinct areas of the estate to enable character and placemaking. Thus, the provided examples are not reflective of the appeal site locality and neither do they provide a precedent for the visual harm which would result from the proposed development. The gated Appeal Decision 6007748 3 / private nature of the estate does not diminish the importance of high-quality design in development as reflected in the local and national policy context. 14. For these reasons, the proposed front extension would be harmful to the character and appearance of the property and its surrounding area, contrary to Policies EN1, EN2 and EN4 of the Cotswold District Local Plan 2011 – 2031 (the Local Plan) which expect new development to respect and enhance local character, reflecting local distinctiveness within the surrounding natural environment. Furthermore, the development would not accord with the approach to achieving good design as set out in Chapter 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (NPPF). 15. Policy SKPOL1 of the ‘made’ Somerford Keynes and Shorncote Neighbourhood Development Plan 2015 – 2031, relates to new residential development within the confines of the village of Somerford Keynes. Whilst it seeks to ensure compliance with the Cotswold Design Code, reflecting the Local Plan policies, the proposed development is neither new residential development nor within the village confines. This policy is not therefore determinative in my decision. Other Matters 16. In relation to third party concerns regarding increased occupancy and parking implications, I noted during my site visit that there are communal parking areas available to serve the wider site and which would form part of the available parking provision. The submitted plans show the existing property to have 4 bedrooms with the proposed rear extension providing a 5th bedroom. The resulting minor intensification of the residential use is not in dispute between the main parties and is not materially likely to result in harm in and of itself. Conditions 17. For the reasons set out above, the appeal is dismissed in relation to the proposed single storey front extension. However, the proposed three storey rear extension is clearly severable from the front extension being both physically and functionally independent. Therefore, in this case, under section 79(1)(b) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, I am able to issue a split decision and grant planning permission for the rear extension. 18. As part of the grant of planning permission, legislation requires the imposition of a condition specifying the period for commencement of the development. In addition, I am imposing conditions identifying the relevant drawings to provide certainty, and for materials to match those used on the existing house to maintain the character and appearance of the local area. 19. Taking into account the position of the site within an Impact Risk Zone for the adjacent Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and within a red impact zone for Great Crested Newts, a Construction Environmental Management Plan (Biodiversity) and precautionary method working statement relating to Great Crested Newts will need to be agreed by the council before any development works are commenced. These are required in accordance with the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), Circular 06/2005, paragraph 193 of the NPPF, Policies SP5, EN8 and EN9 of the Local Plan. In addition, the appeal site is positioned within Flood Risk Zone 2. I am satisfied, based upon the evidence before me, that surface water drainage details are necessary to ensure that the Appeal Decision 6007748 4 development would not increase flood risk at this site (Policy EN14 of the Local Plan). 20. In line with Section 100ZA(5) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, written agreement has been received from the appellant in relation to the pre- commencement conditions. Conclusion 21. For the reasons given above, the appeal should be allowed in part and dismissed in part. R Standfield INSPECTOR Schedule of Conditions 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing no’s 04 PL1 and 05 PL1 except in respect of the single storey front extension. 3) The external materials of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling. 4) No development shall take place (including groundworks and any vegetation clearance) until a Construction Environmental Management Plan Biodiversity (CEMP B) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The CEMP B shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following: i. Risk assessment of potentially damaging construction activities ii. Identification of 'biodiversity protection zones' iii. Practical measures (both physical measures and sensitive working practices) to avoid or reduce impacts during construction (may be provided as a set of method statements) iv. The location and timing of sensitive works to avoid harm to biodiversity features (e.g. daylight working hours only starting one hour after sunrise and ceasing one hour before sunset) v. Use of protective fences, exclusion barriers and warning signs, including advanced installation and maintenance during the construction period and vi. Compliance checks by a competent person(s) during construction and immediately post completion of construction works. The approved CEMP B shall be adhered to and implemented throughout the construction period strictly in accordance with the approved details. Appeal Decision 6007748 5 5) No development shall take place until a precautionary method working statement relating to Great Crested Newts has been received and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in full accordance with the approved document. 6) Prior to the commencement of works, details of the existing and proposed soakaway shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved drainage details. End of Schedule