Erection of part two storey part single storey rear and single storey front extensions and installation of a dormer to the rear to facilitate a loft conversion

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 19 August 2026 by K Winnard LL.B Hons Solicitor an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 28 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6012540 102 Burton Road, Branston, Burton upon Trent DE14 3DN • 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 Afzal Ahmed against the decision of East Staffordshire Borough Council. • The application Ref is P/2025/00578. • The development proposed is the erection of part two storey part single storey rear and single storey front extensions and installation of a dormer to the rear to facilitate a loft conversion . Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matters 2. There have been changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) since the determination of the planning application. Both parties have therefore been given the opportunity to comment on whether they are any implications for the appeal. I have had regard to the position of both parties in making my decision and in so doing I am satisfied that no party has been prejudiced by my consideration of this issue. 3. The Council changed the description of the development, and I note this change was agreed by and has also been used by the appellant in the appeal documentation. Accordingly, I have used the same description in the banner heading above. Main Issues 4. The main issue in the appeal is the effect of the development on (i) the character and appearance of the area and (ii) the living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring property. Reasons Character and Appearance 5. The appeal property is sited within a row of six large, terraced properties set back from the road within a residential area. Save for the end terrace properties, the row of terrace dwellings is of a relatively consistent appearance, with the large front gardens creating a degree of regularity to the street scene. The rear of the row of properties is also visible from Mellor Road where, notwithstanding the presence of an extension at the end terraced property, their uniformity presents a pleasing rhythm in the streetscene. Appeal Decision 6012540 2 6. The East Staffordshire Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) sets out guidance in relation to various forms of extensions, the objective of which is to promote high quality design whilst recognising each case has to be decided on its merits. In particular it emphasises that significant new built forms should not generally step forward of the established building line and that an extension should be subservient to the original building in terms of its scale and form. 7. The dwelling has an overly wide front elevation and the front extension proposed would project along its full width. Notwithstanding that it would be single storey and not interrupt the established skyline, the extension would add significantly to the bulk of the building. The enlargement would disrupt the repetitive form of the row of terraces making it significantly larger than the others, increasing its prominence and adversely affecting the visual coherence of the row of terraced dwellings as a whole. Due to its excessive width, it would fail to appear subservient to the host dwelling. 8. The presence of established landscaping along the front boundary with Burton Road would limit the visibility of the proposed extension. Nonetheless glimpses of the proposed development would be seen when travelling along, and viewed directly from, Burton Road. Moreover, I cannot be certain that the boundary hedges to the front garden would be maintained for the lifetime of the development. The harm I have identified would become more apparent were the existing landscaping to be cut back or removed. The Framework remains clear that development which is not well designed should be refused. It would not therefore be acceptable to rely on the presence of landscaping to cover up poor design. 9. At the rear of the dwelling a part single storey, part two storey and a large rear dormer to accommodate a loft conversion are proposed. The extensions would be substantial and would create a large dominant built form at the rear of the dwelling. Its massing and scale would be clearly visible when viewed from Mellor Road at the rear and be harmful to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and this part of the street scene. 10. I appreciate that the design has been revised during the course of the planning process to address concerns expressed by the Council and I have also had regard to the appellant’s contention that a valid fallback position exists in that the property could be extended at both the front and the rear of the property using permitted development allowances. Even if the implementation of extensions under permitted development rights has a greater than theoretical possibility, there is no substantive evidence before me to suggest that such extensions would be of a size and extent that would cause more or a similar level of harm to justify being given significant weight. 11. In support of the appeal the appellant also points to the development at no 106 Burton Road which is of a similar design to that now proposed. I observed this property on my site visit. Whilst relevant, such a decision is not binding upon me and does not limit the scope of my judgement in this case which falls to be determined on its own merits. I do not know the circumstances and full details of this development but in any event, I noted that its end setting benefits from a more open aspect derived from the gap with nearby properties which offsets its scale and dominance. As such it is not directly comparable to the scheme before me and merits limited weight. Appeal Decision 6012540 3 12. I have taken into account the assertion of the appellant that design guidance within the SPD cannot be applied as an automatic veto or override national decision- making policies. The Framework does not preclude innovation or change, especially where an increased scale of development is justified but it is also clear that substantial weight should be given to compliance with relevant development plan policies when assessing design quality. 13. Policy DP3 (1) of the Framework requires that proposals should respond to their context so that they integrate with and enhance their surroundings which I have found would not be the case here. DP3(3) requires that development should be refused if without clear justification they conflict with paragraph 1. I have been presented with no clear justification. 14. Therefore, on this issue I conclude that the proposal would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area. Accordingly, it would conflict with Policies SP24 and DP1 of the East Staffordshire Local Plan (LP) both, amongst other things, require development to respect local patterns of development and to respond positively to the context of the surrounding area. It would also conflict with the SPD insofar as it seeks to support high quality design in development. Living Conditions 15. The rear extension proposed would project across the width of the rear of the property directly abutting the boundary with the neighbouring property, No 100 Burton Road. The block plan submitted in this instance indicates that the proposal would breach the 45 degree check set out in the Council’s Separation Distances and Amenity Supplementary Planning Document (SDA SPD) which seeks to maintain a satisfactory relationship between existing buildings and proposed extensions and to avoid an overbearing impact on adjacent properties and amenity areas. 16. The appellant indicates that the Council has itself granted planning permission for the development at No 106 despite a breach of this test. Be that as it may, each site is different and must be determined on its own circumstances and in this respect I noted that No 104 Burton Road has a single storey extension to its rear which abuts the rear extension of No 106. I cannot therefore be sure that it represents a direct parallel to the scheme before me, and as such I attach limited weight to this development. 17. In any event the 45 degree rule can only guide such development as each application has to be assessed on its own merits. In this instance the massing of a large expanse of wall close to the rear window of No 100 would, due to its depth and height, result in a significant enclosing effect on the boundary and a consequential loss of some daylight to the occupiers of No 100. The second window in this room would not totally mitigate the loss of light due to the significant depth of the ground floor room which would in itself inevitably limit the level of light received at the rear of the room. 18. On this second issue I therefore conclude that the proposal would be harmful to the living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring property. Consequently, it would be contrary to Policies SP1 and DP3 of the LP which seek to ensure that new development would be of a high quality design taking into effect the impact of Appeal Decision 6012540 4 the amenity of the occupiers of nearby residential properties in terms of loss of light. It would also fail to comply with Policy L2(d)(ii) of the Framework which requires that any proposal providing for effective use of land should result in acceptable living standards for neighbours in terms of access to daylight and sunlight. Planning Balance and Conclusion 19. The proposal seeks to extend and refurbish the existing property allowing for an improvement in layout and room sizes, including the creation of dormer accommodation, to create a more functional family house. Policy L2 of the Framework states that substantial weight should be given to the benefits of a development proposal which creates additional floorspace. However, sub paragraph L2(d)(i) also requires they be consistent with the overall street scene which is not the case here. Nor, whilst acknowledging that the property lies in a spacious plot, given the harm I have identified to the character and appearance of the area would sub paragraph L2(1)(d)(iii) apply in this instance. 20. Policy S4 of the Framework states that development proposals within settlements should be approved unless adverse effects substantially outweigh the benefits. At S4(2)(c) one of the circumstances in which the benefits of approving the development are likely to be substantially outweighed by adverse effects would be failure to comply with one of the national decision-making policies which state that development proposals should be refused in specific circumstances. I have found that to be the case here with respect to Policy DP3. Hence, any limited economic benefits would be outweighed by the adverse effect to the character and appearance of the area, and it would not amount to sustainable development or the effective use of land under the terms of the Framework. 21. The proposal would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area and harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring dwelling. Consequently, it would conflict with the development plan taken as a whole and there are no material considerations that would outweigh that conflict. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. K Winnard INSPECTOR