Single storey side extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 8 July 2026 by N McGurk BSc (Hons) MCD MBA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 24 July 2026 Appeal Ref: 6010858 15 Hawkshead Road, Glossop, Derbyshire, SK13 7ST • 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 Michael Redford against the decision of High Peak Borough Council. • The application Ref is HPK/2025/0327. • The development proposed is a single storey side extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues in this case are the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area; and its effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of Number 16 Hawkshead Road, with regards to privacy. Reasons Character and appearance 3. The appeal property is a semi-detached three storey dwelling. It is located within a modern housing estate in an area characterised by the presence of two and three storey detached, semi-detached and terraced stone and slate-built dwellings with traditional pitched roofs. 4. Dwellings tend to be set back from the road behind parking areas and/or small front gardens and have gardens to the rear. The housing estate is located towards the edge of the urban area and as a consequence, there are extensive views between dwellings to the hills and countryside beyond. 5. The matching palette of stone and slate materials, together with features including dark heritage-style windows, stone lintels and cills, matching chimneys, brick driveways and stone paths, combines with the similar form and design of dwellings to result in a pleasing sense of uniformity. 6. Further, the use of natural materials and the presence of gardens and visual gaps between dwellings help to integrate the modern housing into the attractive surrounding countryside in this edge of settlement location. Appeal Decision 6010858 2 7. The appeal dwelling has a parking area to the side, beyond which is an area of side garden. The proposed extension would be set back from the front elevation and project across what is currently the parking area. It is proposed to replace the parking area and provide new parking spaces off-set to the front of the dwelling. 8. The proposed ground floor extension would have a flat roof, which would be surrounded to three sides by a low glazed balustrade, and it would be accessed from a new first floor entrance door. 9. The proposed extension would be set back and of modest scale relative to the height and depth of the host dwelling. However, the box-like appearance of the structure, resulting from its flat roof, would not be entirely hidden from view but would appear as an alien feature, at odds with the host dwelling and its neighbours, with their traditional pitched roofs. 10. Further, the harm arising from the above would be exacerbated by the presence of the glass balustrade, which would jar with the uniform design and palette of materials common to the host dwelling and its neighbours. This would add to the proposal’s incongruous appearance and detract from the area’s identified attributes. 11. Given all of the above, I find that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework; to Policy EQ6 of the Local Plan1; to the Council’s Residential Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2005) (SPD); and to the Council’s Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2018), which together amongst other things, seek to protect local character. Living conditions 12. The proposed extension would provide an accessible balcony, designed as an amenity space. The low glass balustrade would not provide for privacy but would enable direct, wide-ranging views from the balcony to the north-east, east and south-west. 13. The rear garden of Number 16 Hawkshead Road is located a short distance to the south-east of the appeal property, separated from it by only a driveway to a garage and a fence. Due to its height, design and proximity, the proposed balcony would allow for direct views over the top of No 16’s fence and into this neighbouring garden. 14. Direct overlooking from an outside amenity space is different to the normal glimpses afforded by overlooking from windows. Overlooking from a balcony is more intrusive than that from a window, as occupiers are actively outside, moving, standing or sitting, with sustained opportunities for multi-directional sightlines. In this case, the development would provide for direct views into a neighbour’s private space from the dominant height of a balcony. 15. This would result in both a loss of privacy and a loss of perceived privacy, as the presence of occupiers on a balcony with direct sightlines into the rear garden of No 16 would likely lead to a heightened sense of being watched by occupiers of the balcony, whether or not that was the case. 1 High Peak Local Plan (2016). Appeal Decision 6010858 3 16. Taking the above into account, I find that the proposed development would harm the living conditions of the occupiers of Number 16 Hawkshead Road, with regards to privacy. It would be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework; to Policy EQ6 of the Local Plan; and to the Council’s SPD, which together amongst other things, seek to protect residential amenity. Other Matters 17. The appellants, in support of their case, refer to the presence of low pitch EPDM rubber roofs elsewhere on the same estate as the appeal dwelling. However, the proposed development would be different to these examples and consequently, they do not provide for direct comparison. Notwithstanding this and in any case, the proposal the subject of this appeal would result in harm to local character and residential amenity and hence the conclusion below. Conclusion 18. The appeal does not succeed. N McGurk INSPECTOR