Erection of a two storey side and rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 21 August 2026 by N Perrins MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 24 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6010597 43 Oriel Grove, Southdown, Bath BA2 1JE • 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 Mrs Brown against the decision of Bath and North East Somerset Council. • The application Ref is 25/03601/FUL. • The development proposed is the erection of a two storey side and rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of a two storey side and rear extension at 43 Oriel Grove, Southdown, Bath BA2 1JE in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 25/03601/FUL and subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this decision; 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: (i) Proposed Plans and Elevations Rev B; 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. Preliminary Matters 2. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was updated on 17 August 2026. I am satisfied, however, that the relevant policy position for this appeal is not materially different and that its publication has not prejudiced any party. Accordingly, I have taken the current version of the Framework into account in reaching my decision. Main Issue 3. The main issue is whether the proposed development would result in an overbearing impact on, and unacceptable overshadowing to, the occupiers of No. 42 Oriel Grove. Reasons 4. The appeal property forms one of a pair of semi‑detached dwellings situated on the outer side of Oriel Grove. The land slopes such that No. 42 Oriel Grove (No. 42), the unattached neighbour, sits at a slightly higher ground level to the appeal site. Appeal Decision 6010597 2 5. The proposal comprises a two-storey rear extension projecting 2m beyond the existing rear wall and a two-storey side extension. The side extension would begin approximately halfway along the depth of the dwelling and extend around 8.2m to the rear, rising to an eaves height of around 5m to match the host dwelling, with a hipped roof above. It would be constructed on what is currently open hardstanding/patio space. The scheme would increase the number of bedrooms at the appeal property from three to five. There is no dispute between the parties regarding the proposed rear extension element of the proposal. I agree that this is acceptable and the assessment that follows focuses solely on the merits of the side extension component. 6. The proposed two-storey side extension would run along the shared boundary with No. 42, first beside its original two-storey side wall and then its single-storey rear projection. It would extend no further than that projection. It would not, therefore, run alongside or stand immediately adjacent to No. 42's main usable garden or amenity space, which from the information before me begins beyond the rear projection. Any increased sense of enclosure or dominance experienced from within No. 42's outdoor space would accordingly be confined to the side passage which, while a functionally usable part of the plot, did not appear, from what was visible from the appeal site, to be a primary space used for sitting out or otherwise enjoying outdoor amenity. 7. This outcome reflects the particular position of No. 42's own single-storey rear projection, which sets back the point at which its main garden and amenity space begins. Absent such a feature, a two-storey side extension built hard against a shared boundary would be more likely to result in an unacceptable degree of enclosure or overshadowing to a neighbour's principal garden area, which for the reasons set out does not arise here. 8. The higher ground level at No. 42 would further moderate the perceived height and dominance of the extension when viewed from the neighbour's land. Taking this together with the limited extent of No. 42's outdoor space affected, I do not find that the scale and proximity of the extension would, of itself, result in an unduly overbearing presence, or unacceptably affect the occupiers' enjoyment of their outdoor amenity space. 9. The flank elevation of No. 42 facing the boundary contains a small first-floor window, together with small ground-floor openings and a side door providing access into No. 42's rear projection. The window and ground-floor openings, given their modest dimensions, positions, and in some cases use of obscure glazing, likely serve non-habitable or secondary spaces such as circulation, utility, or sanitary facilities. The side door provides access to that projection and is unlikely to be a primary source of outlook. Even if any of these openings served a habitable room, their limited scale means that any reduction in outlook resulting from the proposed development would be modest and unlikely to be materially harmful to living conditions. 10. On overshadowing, neither party has submitted any technical shadow or sun-path assessment. Based on the spatial relationship observed during my site visit, I accept that a two-storey wall of the height and length proposed could cast shadow along the side passage at times during the day. However, this shadow would fall on an area that, as set out above, does not form part of No. 42's primary usable garden or amenity space. Given that the extension would extend no further than the Appeal Decision 6010597 3 single-storey rear projection, I am satisfied that any overshadowing would not extend materially into the garden beyond it. The higher ground level of No. 42 would, in any event, further reduce its reach. In the absence of any evidence to demonstrate a significant effect on the usable garden itself, I am satisfied that the proposal would not unacceptably harm the usability or enjoyment of No. 42's principal outdoor amenity area. 11. In conclusion, while the proposed extension would represent a visible change along the boundary, its impact having regard to the site-specific circumstances in this case would be confined to No. 42's side passage area rather than its main usable garden or amenity space. Any overbearing impact or overshadowing affecting the garden beyond the rear projection, where that amenity is principally enjoyed, would be minor. Having regard to the mitigating effect of the higher ground level, No. 42's existing rear build line, and the absence of any materially affected habitable room windows, I am satisfied that the development would preserve an acceptable standard of living conditions for the occupiers of No. 42. Other Matters 12. No objections were received from neighbouring occupiers. While the absence of representations is not determinative, it is consistent with my findings that the proposal would not result in unacceptable harm. 13. The proposal is acceptable in terms of design, character and appearance, and highway and parking considerations. 14. The appellant has referred to benefits relating to additional accommodation, accessibility and fostering. While I acknowledge that the additional bedroom and bathroom space would improve the functionality of the dwelling and provide modest benefits to the occupiers, I do not need to consider these matters further in this decision as I have found the proposal to be acceptable in any event. Conditions 15. I have considered the Council’s suggested conditions having regard to the tests in the Framework and national planning practice guidance. In this regard, I agree that the standard time‑limit condition and a plans condition are necessary for certainty as to when development must commence, and to confirm what is approved. A condition to require materials match those used on the host dwelling is also necessary to safeguard the character and appearance of the area. Conclusion 16. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposal would not result in unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of No. 42. The development accords with Policy D6 of the CSPMP. There are no material considerations that indicate a decision contrary to the development plan. 17. The appeal is therefore allowed. N Perrins INSPECTOR