Proposed ground and second floor rear extensions together with hip to gable with loft conversion and rear dormer

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 14 August 2026 by Mrs Chris Pipe BA(Hons), DipTP, MTP, MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 28 August 2026 Appeal Ref: 6012066 13 Eason Road, York, YO24 2HZ • 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 Ian Hamilton against the decision of City of York Council. • The application Ref is 26/00314/FUL. • The development proposed is described as proposed ground and second floor rear extensions together with hip to gable with loft conversion and rear dormer. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matters 2. The appellant has highlighted in their grounds of appeal that the appeal relates solely to the single-storey rear extension and that although the original application included a second floor extension and roof level works, these elements are no longer being pursued. Notwithstanding this, I have considered this appeal on the basis of the plans submitted as this is what the Council based its assessment on. Main Issue 3. The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the host property and area in general. Reasons 4. The appeal property is a two-storey semi-detached property on Eason Road. The immediate area is characterised mainly by pairs of semi-detached houses, many of which have been altered or extended. Even so, the original two-storey scale, roof forms and the balanced relationship between paired properties remain important components of the character and appearance of the street scene. The rear elevations are also experienced from public views on St Helen’s Road. 5. The existing property has a substantial flat roofed two-storey rear extension, the appeal proposal would add a second floor extension above that rear projection, together with a hip-to-gable alteration and rear dormer. Those works would read together as a full third storey of accommodation extending across and around the rear roof slope. 6. The proposed roof additions would not be subordinate to the host property. In particular, the second floor extension would be of the same width and depth as the existing rear projection and would rise to meet the ridge of the main roof. In Appeal Decision 6012066 2 combination with the hip-to-gable and rear dormer, it would substantially develop the rear roof plane with little visual relief. The result would be a top heavy awkward form that would appear poorly related to the host property. 7. The extent of development proposed at roof level would also unbalance the pair of semi-detached properties. One half of the pair would present as a largely three storey gabled property, while the adjoining house would retain a more conventional two storey hipped form. This contrast would be visually jarring and would undermine the symmetry and composition of the pair. 8. The proposed single-storey rear extensions would be more modest when viewed in isolation. However, together with the existing and proposed rear additions, they would further increase built form across the rear of the property and would leave little of the original rear elevation discernible. The close relationship with the detached garage would also create an awkward and cramped arrangement within the plot. 9. The proposed development would result in an overbearing built form. Which would overwhelm the host property, appear incoherent at roof level and fail to respond positively to the character and appearance of the pair of semi-detached properties or the wider street scene. 10. I find that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area. There is conflict with Policy D11 of the City of York Local Plan, Plan Period 2017-2033 (2025) and the City of York Council House Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (2012), which seek, amongst other things, development that responds positively to immediate architectural character and local character. Conclusion 11. For the above reasons I conclude that this appeal should be dismissed. Chris Pipe INSPECTOR