Single storey rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 11 June 2026 by K Winnard LL.B Hons Solicitor an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 26 June 2026 Appeal Ref: 6009358 7 Pintail Meadow, Rhodesia, Nottinghamshire S80 3GD • 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 and Mrs Deamer against the decision of Bassetlaw District Council. • The application Ref is 26/00205/HSE. • The development proposed is a single storey rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue in the appeal is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the area. Reasons 3. The appeal property, 7 Pintail Meadow (No 7) is a semi detached dwelling situated in a row of dwellings of a uniform style and character on a recently built residential development. The rear of these properties face Tylden Road, their boundary boarded by a high timber fence, currently hidden by a higher advertising hoarding, with an additional grass verge adjacent to the footway and road. The boundary fencing and advertising board towards Tylden Road, together with dwellings which “book end” the entrance of the estate, limit some public views of the properties. 4. The proposed rear extension spanning much of the full width of No 7, would be limited to single storey with a lean-to roof and would be finished in materials to match the host dwelling. It would be of good design and generally subservient to the host dwelling. The Council’s concern relates to the visual intrusion of the proposal to the detriment of the uniform rear elevation building line currently provided in line with the approved estate layout. The Council’s Householder Extensions Supplementary Planning Document (SPD)(adopted November 2025) provides that where applicable extensions should contribute positively to local distinctiveness by echoing architectural features. In this case the proposed extension would be in contrast to the prevailing pattern of development at the rear of the dwellings, and as such would stand out as an incongruous feature. 5. Reference has been made to a number of developments within the immediate area where approvals have been given for extensions to properties on newly built residential estates with a generally consistent design approach, including one on Pintail Meadow. However, I note that the SPD provides that design must respond to Appeal Decision 6009358 2 individual site characteristics including orientation and the established building line. In the case of the extensions drawn to my attention the extensions of these properties sit on building lines not as discernible as that of the appeal site. Further, I am not aware of the full circumstances surrounding these developments and as such cannot be certain that they represent direct parallels with the appeal scheme. In any event the existence of these developments and those within the wider area do not justify development which would otherwise be unacceptable. 6. I acknowledge that the timber fencing, including within the appeal site itself, and the presence of outbuildings in gardens would screen some public views of the proposal. Views of the development from the A57, which is elevated at this point and separated by mature woodland, would be fleeting. The extension would also be of a size normally allowable under permitted development rights. Notwithstanding these factors, the building line established along the rear elevations of this part of Pintail Meadow ensures a strong sense of order contributing positively to the rhythm of the area. The proposal would interrupt the carefully planned alignment that the original estate layout sought to achieve to the detriment of the character and appearance of the area. 7. The Council has not raised concerns in respect of the amenities of the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers and that as a householder application the proposal would be exempt from biodiversity requirements. However, the absence of harm in these regards does not weigh in favour of the proposal. 8. Therefore, the proposal would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the area. As such it would be in conflict with Policy ST33 of the Bassetlaw Local Plan which requires development to have a robust understanding of local context and distinctiveness. It would also be in conflict with the SPD, details of which are given above and the National Planning Policy Framework which requires development to respond positively to local context. Other matter 9. I note the reference to the Council’s handling of the application process, but this is not a matter before me, nor does it alter my findings. Conclusion 10. For the reasons given above the appeal is dismissed. K Winnard INSPECTOR