Flat roof (maximum 3m in height), single story extension, 6m x 5.8m, constructed from masonry in the same style and similar colour as the existing dwelling house

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 2 September 2026 by Ellie Nutman BA (Hons) Decision by John Morrison BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 28 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6009807 11 Windermere Drive, Goole DN14 6JW • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant approval required under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A, Paragraph A.4 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended). • The appeal is made by Mrs Megan Gardiner against the decision of East Riding of Yorkshire Council. • The application Ref is 26/10325/HHNOT. • The development proposed is a flat roof (maximum 3m in height), single story extension, 6m x 5.8m, constructed from masonry in the same style and similar colour as the existing dwelling house. Extension to rear of the property to provide family amenity space. 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. Preliminary Matters and Main Issue 3. The decision notice includes references to the development plan and a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). The principle of development is established through the grant of permission by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, as amended (the GPDO), and I am required to assess the proposal as one seeking prior approval as set out within the parameters of the aforementioned parts of the GPDO. Regard can be given to development plan policies and the SPD insofar as they are material considerations; however, they are not in themselves determinative. 4. Under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO, planning permission is granted for the enlargement of a dwellinghouse subject to limitations and conditions. Where an application is made for a determination as to whether prior approval is required for development which exceeds the limits in paragraph A.1(f) but is allowed by paragraph A.1(g) to Part 1, paragraph A.4(3) provides that an application can be refused where the proposed development does not comply with the conditions, limitations or restrictions that are applicable to such permitted development. 5. Paragraph A.4(7) to Part 1 requires the local planning authority to assess the impact of the proposed development on the amenity of all adjoining premises, taking into account any representations received. This is the specifics of the main Appeal Decision 6009807 2 issue of the appeal, with particular regard to the living conditions of the occupiers of Number 9 Windermere Drive (No 9), with particular reference to outlook. Reasons for the Recommendation 6. The extension would be positioned close to the boundary with No 9 and a small gap would remain. Whilst the extension would be visible from the garden of No 9, the garden is of a generous size and occupiers would continue to benefit from an acceptable outlook when using their private outdoor amenity space. However, No 9 benefits from a single window serving the living room which provides the primary external outlook, as the other opening leads into the conservatory. 7. The scheme would run along much of the shared boundary and, by reason of its height, depth and flat-roofed design, would appear as a prominent feature, especially above the existing boundary treatment. Consequently, it would result in a strong sense of enclosure. This would be exacerbated by the siting and projection of the existing conservatory structure to No 9. Therefore, whilst extensions can reasonably be expected to have a close relationship with neighbouring properties, this does not preclude harm arising in site-specific circumstances. In this case, given the proximity and size of the extension relative to a primary habitable room window, it would result in an unacceptable effect on outlook for users of the room, to the detriment of the quality of their living conditions. Whilst not determinative, this would not sit squarely with the aims of Policy EN1 of the East Riding Local Plan. Other Matters 8. The East Riding Design Code indicates that single-storey extensions adjoining a boundary are usually acceptable where they project no more than 3.5 metres beyond the neighbouring rear wall. Whilst the appeal proposal would exceed this depth, I have reached my conclusions based on my own assessment of the proposal's relationship with No 9 and the specifics of its context. 9. Whilst permitted development rights under other provisions in the same class as the proposal may allow an extension to the rear, the effects thereof would be materially different owing to allowances being for something of significantly lesser projection from the rear elevation. I am satisfied that by virtue of the affected room’s connection to the conservatory along with the orientation of properties relevant to each other, there would not be an unacceptable loss of light. This would not however lessen the harm that would arise to outlook in the manner I have explained. The appearance and design of the extension is not a contentious matter and would be a lack of harm in any case. 10. There is clearly a need for the appellant to extend the dwelling to suit the current and future family. The evidence on this matter however, putting aside the scope of submissions for prior approval, strikes me as more personal which, in regard to the specifics of the case, would not lead me to allowing the appeal. Conclusion and Recommendation 11. The appeal proposal would fail an assessment for prior approval for the reasons set out. I therefore recommend the appeal should be dismissed. Ellie Nutman APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Appeal Decision 6009807 3 Inspector’s Decision 12. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. John Morrison INSPECTOR