Erection of a double-storey side extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 24 June 2026 by S Jamieson BA(Hons) MPlan MRTPI Decision by John Morrison BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 7 August 2026 Appeal Ref: 6008124 3 Carshalton Grove, Sutton SM1 4LY • 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 Ray Cameron against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Sutton. • The application Ref is DM2025/01481. • The development proposed is erection of a double-storey side extension. 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 area. Reasons for the Recommendation 4. The appeal relates to a semi-detached Victorian dwelling with a part London stock brick and part rendered façade. It retains many other original features, including a ground floor bay window, arched lintels and decorative brickwork. An attached garage is positioned to the side. There is a strong degree of symmetry between the appeal property and the adjoining dwelling and, despite some wider variation in housing types and architectural styles, the pair make a notable positive contribution to the character and appearance of Carshalton Grove. 5. The proposed extension would be modest in scale and set back from the principal elevation. Nevertheless, it would largely infill the gap at first floor level between the appeal dwelling and the neighbouring property, resulting in a loss of spaciousness to one side of the semi-detached pair. 6. Furthermore, while the eaves would align with that of its host, the roof of the extension would sit considerably below the ridge of the main roof, giving it an awkward, squat appearance. When combined with the resultant valley between the two roofs, and despite local variation in roof form, including to the rear of the appeal dwelling, this would represent a prominent and incongruous addition that would relate poorly to the appeal dwelling and the wider street scene. Therefore, and Appeal Decision 6008124 2 even accounting for the use of matching materials and period detailing, the extension would appear discordant, unbalancing the semi-detached dwellings and diminishing the positive contribution they make to the area as a pair. 7. While I recognise that the proposal would provide additional usable accommodation for the appellant, and that an architect has been involved in its design, I am not persuaded that, despite the difference in site levels, this outcome could not be achieved through a more sympathetic approach. 8. Consequently, the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore be contrary to Policy 28 of the Sutton Local Plan 2016 - 2031 (2018) which requires that alterations and extensions are, amongst other things, designed to the highest standard, especially with regard to architectural detailing. It would also be inconsistent with the guidance contained in the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document on the Design of Residential Extensions (2006) which specifies that the design and detail of the junction between the old and new roof is important. Conclusion and Recommendation 9. For the reasons given above, appeal scheme would conflict with the development plan, and material considerations do not indicate a decision other than in accordance. I therefore recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. S Jamieson APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 10. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. John Morrison INSPECTOR