Proposed single storey extension (retrospective)

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 14 September 2026 by P J Staddon BSc, Dip, MBA (Distinction), MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 23 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6013030 3 Melrose Avenue, Exeter, EX1 3FY • 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 F Boucher against the decision of Exeter City Council. • The application Ref is 26/0242/FUL. • The development proposed is ‘proposed single storey extension (retrospective)’. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single storey extension (retrospective) at 3 Melrose Avenue, Exeter, EX1 3FY, in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 26/0242/FUL, and drawing number 26/06/01 submitted with it. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the extension on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 3. The appeal property is a 2-storey brick built semi-detached dwelling situated on a modern residential estate known as Hill Barton Vale Phase 1. The house fronts onto Melrose Avenue and is set behind a small front garden area. It occupies an irregular shaped plot, with a private drive and a parking area to its north and west, serving a small cluster of dwellings. The side and rear garden boundary with this drive and parking space is formed by a brick wall, which I measured to be about 1.9 metres high. 4. The appeal proposal relates to a single-storey wraparound extension on the rear and side of the dwelling. It has already been constructed and occupied. It projects outwards about 3 metres from the rear wall of the house and about 2.7 metres from the side wall. The front part of the side section has been formed by raising the boundary wall by several courses of brickwork. 5. The extension is faced in brickwork similar to that of the house and with similar style white uPVC framed doors and windows. It is flat roofed, but includes 2 lantern style rooflights, one on the side and one on the rear, which span most of the roof area, providing light to the accommodation within, shown on the plans as a dining room to the rear, and utility and home office rooms to the side. Appeal Decision 6013030 2 6. The Council objects to the extension and considers that it is an unsympathetic form of development which is harmful to the character and appearance of the dwelling and streetscene. I do not share this assessment, given that the addition is of a limited height, involves a modest projection from the rear and side boundaries, and is of a neat appearance. Moreover, the extension is largely screened from public views, with only its upper parts and shallow-pitched roof lanterns just visible from Melrose Avenue and the private drive to the side of the appeal property. As a result, it does not dominate the host dwelling and remains subservient to it. Any impact on the streetscene is very limited and not negative in my assessment. 7. Whilst noting the Council’s views about wraparound extensions and lantern rooflights, these are not novel nor necessarily discordant features in modern residential estate settings. I noted a number of examples of other additions and features in the vicinity, including a large conservatory at No. 7 Melrose Avenue. Whether or not these have arisen through the exercise of ‘permitted development’ provisions, they form part of the local urban grain and context within which the appeal proposal should be assessed. 8. I am satisfied that the extension would remain subservient to the host dwelling and would not harm its character or undermine the urban grain of the area, these being considerations identified for wraparound extensions in the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) 'Householder's Guide: Design of Extensions and Alterations’ (adopted April 2024). I therefore find no conflict with the SPD. I am also satisfied that there is no conflict with Section 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026), Objective 9 and Policy CP17 of the Exeter Local Development Framework Core Strategy (adopted February 2012), and Policy DG1 of the Exeter Local Plan First Review 1995-2011 (adopted March 2005), all of which seek high and appropriate standards of design. 9. Given that I have found the proposal to be acceptable on the main issue, the Council’s second reason concerning ‘precedent’ is not relevant. In any event, it is an established planning principle that each case is determined on its individual merits and the circumstances that apply in this case will not be the same for other proposals. 10. I conclude that the proposal is acceptable and the appeal is allowed. P. Staddon INSPECTOR