Front porch and rear single storey extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 4 August 2026 by Alison Fish BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 11 August 2026 Appeal Ref: 6008580 39 Howard Road, Wellington, Somerset TA21 8RU • 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 Thomas Jordan against the decision of Somerset Council. • The application Ref is 43/26/0005. • The development proposed is front porch and rear single storey extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for front porch and rear single storey extension at 39 Howard Road, Wellington, Somerset TA21 8RU in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 43/26/0005, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following 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 nos: Location Plan dated 11 October 2025; P1-1 Proposed Floor Plans; P1-2 Proposed Elevation Plans and P1-3 Proposed Block Plans. 3) The external materials of the extensions hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling. Preliminary Matter 2. The Council’s reason for refusal refers to the effect of the proposals on No. 41 Howard Road and the officer’s report identifies that this concern relates specifically to the rear extension. No. 41 appears to be the property to the north of the appeal site, rather than the attached semi-detached neighbour, which the submitted site location plan indicates as being No. 37. As the Council’s officer report provides no specific details which enable me to identify the exact property to which their concerns relate, I have considered the impact of the proposed rear extension on the occupiers of both properties for the sake of completeness. Main Issues 3. Therefore, the main issues are: i) the effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the area; and ii) the effect of the extension to the rear on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers with particular regard to outlook. Appeal Decision 6008580 2 Reasons Character and appearance 4. The appeal site consists of a semi-detached, two storey dwelling located in a residential area comprising of predominantly semi-detached properties. Although a degree of visual unity arises from the comparable size and type of dwellings and a similar materials palette, the street scene also exhibits variation in both roof design and elevational appearance. 5. The proposed extension to the front of the property would be slightly set in from the outermost extent of the front elevation and project out by just under 1.6 metres. With a pitched roof sitting below the first-floor windows, the extension would not be large. Whilst it would be at odds with uncluttered front elevation of the host property and its immediate neighbours, I saw that single storey projections to front elevations were a common feature in the immediate area. The proposed extension, rather than appearing incongruous, would be consistent with the scale and form of these other extensions in the immediate surroundings and would add to the varied street scene. 6. The rear extension would not be visible from the street. Whilst it would extend across the whole width of the property and project out by 5 metres, it would sit comfortably below the first-floor windows. The original form of the dwelling would still be legible, and the proposed extension would appear subservient. In addition, the flat roof would assist in reducing its visual mass so consequently it would not appear as a dominant or incongruous addition. 7. Even when considered cumulatively, the proposed extensions would not overwhelm the existing dwelling or detract from the character and appearance of the area. I therefore find no conflict with Policy DM1 of the Taunton Deane Borough Council Adopted Core Strategy 2011-2028 (CS) and Policy D5 of the Taunton Deane Adopted Site Allocations and Development Management Plan 2016 (SADMP) which seek to ensure that extensions to dwellings are subservient and that the character and appearance of any building or street scene would not be unacceptably harmed. Living conditions 8. The property to the north, which I understand to be no. 41, has a single storey projection with a lean-to roof, off its rear elevation. This joins the boundary with the host property. A similar projection on the rear of the host dwelling would be removed thereby creating an alleyway and a degree of separation between the two properties. As the proposed flat roof extension would extend only marginally beyond the existing rear projection, there would be no harmful impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of the adjacent property. 9. There is a close boarded fence between the host dwelling and its semi-detached neighbour, shown on the site location plan to be no. 37. The proposed extension would result in only a modest increase in height along the shared boundary, with the nearest ground floor window set well back from it. As a result, the proposed extension would not significantly affect the outlook or appear overbearing to neighbouring occupiers. Appeal Decision 6008580 3 10. I therefore find no conflict with Policy D5 of the SADMP which seeks to ensure that extensions to dwellings do not harm the residential amenity of other dwellings. Other Matters 11. The appeal site lies within the catchment of the Somerset Levels and Moors Ramsar site. Whilst its special interest features are considered unfavourable or at risk from the effects of eutrophication caused by excessive phosphates, the appeal proposal relates to extensions to an existing dwelling, rather than an additional residential unit. It is not considered that this would be likely to lead to a net increase in population and add phosphate to the designated site via the wastewater treatment effluent. Therefore, a likely significant effect can be ruled out. As such, I am satisfied that an appropriate assessment under Regulation 63 of the Habitats Regulations 2017 in terms of the impact of the proposal on the Ramsar is not required. Conditions 12. In addition to the standard time condition, it is necessary to specify the approved plans in the interests of certainty. A condition relating to matching materials is necessary in the interests of the character and appearance of the area. 13. Based on the information available, this permission is considered to be one which will not require the approval of a biodiversity gain plan before development is begun because a statutory exemption applies. Conclusion 14. The proposed development would accord with the development plan and there are no material considerations that outweigh this finding. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Alison Fish INSPECTOR