Proposed single and double storey rear extensions

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 22 June 2026 by Kim Vo MPLAN Decision by John Morrison BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 10 July 2026 Appeal Ref: 6009145 31 Newport Street, Brewood, Staffordshire ST19 9DT • 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 Dr. A. Singh against the decision of South Staffordshire District Council. • The application Ref is 25/00965/FULHH. • The development is described as proposed single and double storey rear extensions. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal Procedure and Preliminary Matters 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. 3. Notwithstanding the description of development set out above, which is taken from the application form, it is clear from the plans and accompanying details that the scheme includes alterations to the front elevation for a porch canopy, entrance door and a window. The Council considered the proposal on this basis and raised no concern regarding these works. I find no reason to disagree. 4. Revised plans were received during the life of the planning application (drawing references: 25 143 04B; 25 143 02C; and 25 143 05A). The Council’s decision was based on them, and I have therefore taken them into account. They also note there are discrepancies for a missing porch canopy on the site plan and scaling issues. However, I am satisfied that the submitted drawings sufficiently illustrate the proposed works such that I am able to take a view thereon Main Issue 5. With the above in mind, the main issue is the effect of the proposed rear extensions on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area. Reasons for the Recommendation 6. The appeal relates to a two storey detached dwelling, which has a projecting front gabled element, bay windows, a porch roof overhang, and a rear conservatory. It also features a one and a half storey side wing, incorporating a garage at ground floor and a bedroom above, with two pitched roof dormers to both the front and rear. Newport Street is characterised by a mix of dwelling types of varying ages that includes nearby listed buildings. However, the appeal property is primarily viewed within a small group of modern detached dwellings. They typically feature red Appeal Decision 6009145 2 brickwork, white/cream render, with low walls and soft landscaping, set well back behind front gardens and driveways. Together, these elements influence a traditional and suburban character and appearance to the area. 7. The proposed rear extensions, in particular the two storey gabled elements, would result in a bulky form that would conceal much of the existing rear elevation. Although their massing would be broken up by small differences in their height and depth, and by their individual pitched roofs, their side by side arrangement and similar size and scale would read as a unified and notable two storey structure. Additionally, the outer two storey gabled element would have a significant depth, continue the side wing’s ridge height, and introduce an awkwardly high eaves level. This would remove the side wing’s rear dormers, which are distinctive architectural features that correspond with those on the front elevation. 8. Whilst the appeal property does have a range of architectural elements, roof forms and projections, the proposal would not integrate successfully with them. Rather, due to their large scale, size and massing, they would appear as dominating, discordant and disproportionate additions that would fail to respect the host dwelling. The same can be said of the proposed single storey rear element, albeit to a lesser degree due to its smaller scale. 9. The proposal would not be visible from the front. However, views of it would still be possible from public vantage points at the cul-de-sac of Newport Croft, and from the private rear gardens of neighbouring dwellings. In these views, the proposal would be conspicuous, even with the surrounding built form. The appeal property is of a large size, and its large plot could accommodate the works. Nevertheless, this does not justify them, for the reasons I have set out. 10. Planning approval 24/00815/FULHH is not sufficiently comparable. This was for a first floor front extension and loft conversion and was a different design and scale. Moreover, whilst this development would alter the principal elevation, the Council considered it subservient. 11. The extensions would therefore cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area. Contrary to Policy EQ11 of the Core Strategy 2012, the South Staffordshire Design Guide 2018 and the National Planning Policy Framework. Amongst other things, these policies and guidance seek for the design of all developments to be of the highest quality and add to the overall quality of the area, where extensions should respect the scale and form of the main building. Other Matters 12. The Brewood Conservation Area (BCA) comprises a large rural settlement spread around a central Market Place and the Shropshire Union Canal, with a mix of urban and rural character. Its significance is derived from its historic position as a market town and rich stock of historic buildings. Number 25A Newport Street, which is a Grade II listed building dating from the late 17th or early 18th century, is also located nearby. It features exposed timbers and white painted brick panels and juts out onto the highway, giving the winding lane of Newport Street a historic feel. The significance of this listed building is therefore derived from its historic cottage use and architecture. Appeal Decision 6009145 3 13. The Council raised no concern regarding the proposal’s impact upon these heritage assets, and I find no reason to disagree with their conclusions thereon. The appeal property itself is a modern unlisted dwelling that is not strongly associated with the designation of these heritage assets. It would use matching materials, be sited at the rear and would not interrupt the important views along Newport Street towards Market Place, as identified on the Townscape Appraisal Map within the BCA Appraisal. The proposal would not therefore detract from, or erode, the character of these heritage assets. The character and appearance of the BCA would thus be preserved, as would the significance of the listed building. 14. The amendments made to the scheme following discussion with the Council would not overcome the identified harm, for the above reasons. The proposal’s acceptable effects in regard to parking and on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers do not make up for the shortcomings of the scheme in regard to the main issue. The lack of objection from neighbours and consultees also does not mean there is a complete absence of harm. They would be neutral matters, and thus incapable of weighing against it. Conclusion and Recommendation 15. For the above reasons, the appeal proposal would conflict with the development plan and material considerations do not indicate a decision other than in accordance therewith. I therefore recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. Kim Vo APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 16. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. John Morrison INSPECTOR