Erection of a single storey rear extension, erection of a first-floor extension above existing garage and creation of a front porch

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 2 September 2026 by S Jamieson BA(Hons) MPlan MRTPI Decision by H Jones BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 28 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6009969 23 Tweedale Crescent, Madeley, Telford TF7 4EA • 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 & Miss John/Shannon Houghton/Bickley against the decision of Telford and Wrekin Council. • The application Ref is TWC/2026/0156. • The development proposed is erection of a single storey rear extension, erection of a first-floor extension above existing garage and creation of a front porch. 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 3. On 17 August 2026, a revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published and, in making my recommendation, I have had regard to its content. I am satisfied that the revisions do not affect the substance of the main issue in the appeal. Since the main parties would not therefore be prejudiced, I have proceeded without further consultation. 4. I have been provided with a copy of policies DD1 and DD3 of the emerging Telford and Wrekin Local Plan Review. Although the evidence before me indicates that the emerging plan is at an advanced stage, I have very limited information on the extent to which there maybe unresolved objections to these policies or the requirement for modifications to be made to them. Consequently, the precise content of the policies could be the subject of change. In the circumstances, I attribute limited weight to the emerging policies. Main Issue 5. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development upon the character and appearance of the area. Reasons for the Recommendation 6. The appeal dwelling is located at one end of a suburban cul-de-sac, where there is much commonality in the age, type, scale and design of properties. Like the appeal Appeal Decision 6009969 2 dwelling, most properties on the street are two-storey, semi-detached dwellings which feature hipped tiled roofs, red brick elevations and similar patterns of fenestration. While some properties have been altered or extended, most commonly through the addition of front porches and single-storey side garages or carports, two-storey side extensions are not a prevalent feature of the street scene. As a result, dwellings tend to be modest in scale, semi-detached pairs retain a balanced appearance, and the overall coherence of the street contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area. 7. Spanning the full width of the garage, the side extension would considerably widen the dwelling at first-floor level. It would have a recessed front elevation, however, its roof ridge level would match the existing house and, consequently, this widening would occur without design interventions which would effectively break down the extension’s considerable mass. As a result, the first-floor extension would form an unduly large and visually dominant addition to the dwelling, which would be at odds with the more modest scale and appearance currently exhibited by both the dwelling and neighbouring properties. 8. Unlike the conservatory it would replace, the proposed rear extension would occupy the full width of the ground floor elevation and, overall, it would be a far larger addition to the rear of the property. The rear extension, due to its brick construction, would also have a more solid appearance than the conservatory. Therefore, the rear extension would result in the property’s western elevation becoming elongated and of considerable mass. This mass would be visible from the street and the adjacent public right of way. 9. Overall, even though much of the garden would still remain undeveloped, cumulatively, the first-floor and rear extensions would substantially increase the dwelling’s size, bulk and visual presence. Altogether, these extensions would be unsympathetic additions to the dwelling which would erode the visual coherence and balanced appearance exhibited within the street scene. 10. Some of the design details proposed, including the use of matching materials and the provision of a hipped roof to the first-floor extension would be appropriate in their own right. However, for the reasons I have given, this would not overcome or mitigate the harm which would arise from the scale and form of the development proposed. 11. Consequently, the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. It would conflict with policies BE 1 and BE 2 of the Telford & Wrekin Local Plan 2011 - 2031 (2018) (Local Plan) which require, amongst other things, that developments respect and respond positively to their context and enhance the quality of the local built environment; demonstrate an integrated design approach from the outset; and in relation to residential alterations, that developments respect the character of the area and remain in keeping with the existing building. Other Matters 12. The Appellants have referred to the exercise of permitted development rights as a potential fallback position. However, no detailed plans relating to an alternative permitted development scheme have been provided. Permitted development rights are subject to a host of conditions and limitations and, from the detail before me, it is not at all clear that these permitted development rights could be exercised to Appeal Decision 6009969 3 extend or add to the property in a manner which would result in effects similar or more harmful than the appeal proposal. In such circumstances, the existence of permitted development rights does not weigh in the proposal’s favour to any meaningful extent. 13. Conditions securing matching materials, obscure glazing, particular construction hours, and compliance with the submitted plans would not sufficiently mitigate or overcome the harm I have set out in my main issue. The Council also raises no concerns regarding the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, parking provision or highway safety, and I have no reason to disagree. Nevertheless, the absence of harm in these respects is a neutral consideration and does not overcome or justify the harm identified. 14. I acknowledge that the Appellants sought to engage with the planning process and made certain design amendments in response to officer feedback. Furthermore, neighbouring occupiers may be supportive of the proposal. However, these matters do not render the scheme acceptable, nor do they address my concerns. Conclusion and Recommendation 15. The proposed development would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area, it would conflict with policies within the development plan as a result and, overall, I find that it conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole. 16. The Framework establishes a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Since the site lies within a settlement, the Framework indicates that development should be approved unless its benefits are substantially outweighed by adverse effects when assessed against the Framework's national decision-making policies. 17. The benefit in this case is derived from the development generating a remodelled and modernised dwelling with additional floorspace. This, in turn, would better meet the needs of its occupants. 18. Against this, the harm to the character and appearance of the area means that the development conflicts with national decision-making policy within the Framework (DP3(1)) which sets out that development should respond to their context so that they integrate and enhance their surroundings. Policy DP3 further sets out that proposals should be refused when this would not be achieved. Therefore, I attach substantial weight to this harm. Taking these points together, the benefits of granting planning permission would be substantially outweighed by adverse effects. 19. Together, Local Plan policies SP 1 and SP 4 require developments to accord with local and national policies. Due to the adverse effects I have identified, and the related policy conflicts, the development conflicts with both of these policies. 20. Overall, the development conflicts with the development plan as a whole and there are no material considerations, including the Framework, that indicate the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. I therefore recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. S Jamieson APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Appeal Decision 6009969 4 Inspector’s Decision 21. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. H Jones INSPECTOR