First floor extension over existing single storey

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 31 July 2026 by J Evans BA(Hons) AssocRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 10 August 2026 Appeal Ref: 6011542 12 Twinways Lane, Melplash, Bridport, Dorset DT6 3UQ • 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 T & Ms C Peters & Hewlett against the decision of Dorset Council. • The application Ref is P/HOU/2026/01564. • The development proposed is described as First floor extension over existing single storey. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues are the effects of the appeal proposal on the character and appearance of the area, and upon the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, namely upon 13 Twinways Lane (No. 13). Reasons Character and appearance 3. The appeal property, 12 Twinways Lane (No. 12), is a semi-detached two storey dwelling positioned towards the southern end of a linear run of properties on Twinways Lane in the small rural community of Melpash. The properties are set below the level of the lane to the west, which in itself is narrow, and is enclosed by established hedging to its eastern side. Whilst the properties along Twinways Lane are mostly two storey and have some similar characteristics, there are also variations in use of materials and matters of detail. 4. The proposal seeks to extend to the side of No.12 at first floor level above an existing single storey section of the property which at present has a cat slide style roofline that connects with the roof profile of the main property. The proposed extension would follow the front and rear building lines of the existing dwelling and would follow the existing ridge line with a hipped roof detail. The proposed window detail is of a three pained horizontal style to both the front and back, which is similar to the style of windows on the south-western (rear) side of No.12 and found elsewhere on some of the other properties along Twinways Lane. 5. Whilst the form and massing of the proposed extension would follow what exists already on the host property, it seems to me that the front two storey gable would remain the dominant feature and by nature of the proposed hipped roof form, the extension would complement the characteristics of No.12 and would not therefore Appeal Decision 6011542 2 appear particularly unusual or out of place in the context of the wider characteristics of the properties along Twinways Lane. 6. However, the choice of the material to be used on the external walls as ‘Marley Cedral or equal cladding’ as set out on the application form would to my mind represent an inconsistent design feature to the textured character of the brick and interlocking concrete tiles of No.12 and that of the surrounding properties. 7. The appellants through their appeal statement have suggested that notwithstanding the dark finish shown on the submitted plans, the detail of the colour of the cladding could be addressed through a planning condition, and whilst their preference would be for a slate grey colour, the appeal statement suggests that alternative colours would be considered. 8. The appellants have also made reference to an allowed appeal ref: APP/D1265/W/21/3284075 at Gorteen, Mill Lane, Chetnole, Sherborne, Dorset DT9 6P (the Chetnole decision) for the use of composite cladding as an alternative to timber cladding in a conservation area. Whilst the Chetnole decision is noted, I do not have the full circumstances of this case, but nonetheless the matters for consideration involved do appear to be materially different. In the Chetnole case, the Inspector referred to the straight edges and a smooth finish of the man made material, but nonetheless noted that the extension which included the cladding was not prominent in the street scene. The position appears to differ from this case, in that the material would be readily apparent from the adjacent lane. But even so, the particular nuances behind each planning case are rarely the same, and I am required to determine each case upon its own individual planning merits. Therefore, whilst I note the Chetnole decision, it has not changed my conclusions upon the proposal before me. 9. Overall, I am not satisfied that a man-made cladding finish would be an appropriate material to use on the proposed extension, bearing in mind the characteristics of the textured material finishes of the remainder of No.12 and that of the neighbouring properties. Further, none of the external colours provided in the brochure for the product (Appendix 6 of the appellants statement) would be complimentary with the colour of the brick and roof tiles on No.12. In reaching my conclusions I do appreciate that there are different material finishes in the area, and there is some potential capacity for a differing material finish to the proposed extension, however, the man made finish and associated characteristics of the proposed cladding and the external colours would not compliment the character of No.12 and it is my view that the use of this material and finishes would result in the extension appearing discordant along the street scene running past No.12 and would therefore appear out of keeping. 10. I note the Council have also referred to the effects of the proposal from the A3066 in their decision notice. However, due to the established boundary enclosures to the highway, the transient nature of views along it and the distances involved, I do not consider that the nature of the material itself would be evident from the A3066. However, a non-consistent colour could appear out of place when the proposal would be visible, particularly during the winter months when hedging along the A3066 would be likely to present less of a visual screen towards No.12. 11. Consequently, for the reasons I have set out above, the proposed development would appear incongruous and would detract from the character and appearance of Appeal Decision 6011542 3 No.12 and the surrounding area. It would therefore conflict with Policies ENV10 and ENV12 of the West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan (2015) (the LP) and Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) (the Framework) which amongst other matters seek high-quality development that respects local distinctiveness and are visually attractive as a result of good architecture. Living conditions 12. The Council’s concerns regarding the effects upon living conditions relate to the potential effects upon No.13 adjacent. Unlike properties 1 to12 Twinways, Nos 13 and 14 are positioned in a linear manner leading away from the public highway, and are positioned relatively close to the southern fenced boundary of No.12’s rear garden, and this is also the case for a conservatory on the northern elevation of No.13. 13. The proposed extension would extend the two-storey form of No.12 closer to No.13. The Council’s specific objection is with regard to the potential for overlooking of No.13 from the first-floor rear window to the proposed extension over No.13’s garden and the conservatory referred to above. 14. During my site visit I viewed the proposal from inside No.13 and from the garden of this property. Whilst it was noted that the roof to the conservatory of No.13 was opaque, when sitting down in the conservatory views were possible to the rear elevation of No.12 and where the window would be positioned, it would therefore be possible that the upper floor window would give a line of sight down into sections of the conservatory area of No.13. The window would also be able to overlook into the section of No. 13’s garden area around the conservatory. 15. However, I do acknowledge that a degree of overlooking may be possible already from windows to the rear of No.12 and there is already a degree of mutual overlooking as a consequence of the physical relationships between the existing properties and the ground levels of their gardens. It is also acknowledged that the proposed window would serve a bedroom and as the appellant has pointed out this would not be a primary social room, nonetheless, loss of privacy, or a perception of loss of privacy, can take place from a room such as a bedroom. 16. If I had been minded to allow the appeal, and if I had found it necessary, I consider that any concerns about overlooking from the proposed window towards No.13 could have been adequately addressed through the imposition of a condition requiring the window to be obscure glazed up to 1.7 metres from floor level and fitted with restrictive openings. Although not material to my decision, as it falls under separate legislation outside of the planning acts, it is noted that the floor plans show this rear window as an emergency escape window, however, the proposed front window to this room appears capable of being used for this purpose. 17. A condition may also have been required to remove permitted development rights for the installation of future windows in the extension on its side elevation fronting towards No.13. Therefore, I am of the view that the concerns expressed by the Council regarding overlooking could have been addressed through appropriately worded conditions. 18. Nonetheless, the occupiers of No.13 have raised wider concerns upon their living conditions than overlooking through their submitted correspondence. They have Appeal Decision 6011542 4 raised concerns about shadowing, loss of light and overbearing implications from the proposed extension. 19. No. 12 is positioned to the north of No.13. The proposed extension would incorporate a hipped roof design so that the roof slopes away from No.13. The extension would also be on a consistent height to two storey components of No.12, and would not be positioned directly next to the boundary of No.13 as a result of an intervening lean-to car port. As a result of the above, I am satisfied that the proposed extension would not lead to any significant adverse effects upon the living conditions of No.13 through loss of light or overshadowing. 20. In terms of an oppressive or overbearing impact, I noted during my site visit that No.13 is positioned at a lower ground level to No.12, and the area of garden area abutting the location of the proposed extension is sunk down. Whilst I consider there would be some impact from the increase in building mass towards No.13 on this section of garden, and from the window serving the kitchen/ dining area facing towards the fenced boundary with No.12, due to the separation distance of the proposed extension from the site boundary and the hipped roof design, I am satisfied that the resultants effects would be acceptable. 21. Taking into account all of the above, I am of the view that the proposal would be acceptable in terms of its effects upon living conditions, subject to the use of conditions where necessary, if I had been minded to allow the appeal. Therefore, on this basis, the proposal would be in accordance with Policy ENV16 of the LP and Section 12 of the Framework, which amongst other matters, seek development that is designed to minimise impacts upon the amenity and quite enjoyment of both existing and future users. Conclusions 22. The appeal proposal would have a detrimental effect on the character and appearance of No.12 and the wider area. 23. As a result of these negative effects, the proposal is in my view unacceptable, and contrary to the development plan, when read as a whole. There are no material considerations that would justify a decision contrary to the provisions of the development plan, in this case. 24. For all of the above reasons, having regard to all matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. J Evans INSPECTOR