Erection of a double storey rear extension following the demolition of the existing single storey rear extension

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: 6014912 3 Wick Road, Wick St Lawrence, Weston-super-Mare, BS22 7YL • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Lee Keet against the decision of North Somerset Council. • The application Ref is 26/P/0509/FUH. • The development proposed is ‘erection of a double storey rear extension following the demolition of the existing single storey rear extension.’ Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary matters 2. The development description used above is taken from the decision notice and is a slightly abridged version of the text that appeared in the application form. I am satisfied that it accurately captures the development proposed. 3. In the course of the application, it appears that some amended plans were presented to North Somerset Council (the Council), but its determination was made on the basis of the originally submitted plans, which are listed in the decision notice1. I must make my assessment on the same plans as those considered and determined by the Council. The pursuit of any amended scheme would need to be the subject of a separate planning application to the Council. Main Issues 4. The main issues are: • The effect of the development on the living conditions of occupants of the neighbouring property, No. 4 Wick Road. • The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the area. Reasons Living conditions – 4 Wick Road 5. The appeal property is a 2-storey semi-detached house on the north side of Wick Road. It sits within a row of 4 pairs of semi-detached houses set back from the road 1 Notably drawing numbers (2)003 Rev C Proposed Ground Floor and First Floor Plans - Option A and (2)004 Rev C Proposed Elevations - Option A Appeal Decision 6014912 2 behind a verge and front gardens. The houses are of a similar and traditional design, with pitched and hipped roofs, and some variation in facing materials. 6. The submitted plans show that the appeal property contains 3 bedrooms at first floor level with a lounge, dining room and kitchen at ground floor, along with a bathroom and utility room contained in a modest-sized lean-to addition to the rear of the house. 7. The appeal proposal would remove the lean-to extension and entail the construction of a 2-storey addition which would span the full width of the house, and extend rearwards some 4.5 metres from the back wall. It would contain an open-plan kitchen diner at ground floor level, and a bedroom with ensuite above, with internal alterations shown on the drawings to convert one of the existing bedrooms to provide a first-floor bathroom. 8. The extension would have a pitched roof, which would be set down a little from the eaves and ridge heights of the main roof. The extension’s side wall facing the party neighbour at No. 4 would be tight up to the boundary, necessitating a parapet wall to contain the roof drainage. A short distance from this proposed parapet is a first- floor window which appears to serve a habitable room (I observed curtains). No. 4 has a single storey lean-to addition beneath this window, which appears to abut the boundary with the appeal property; there is also a 2-storey extension beyond this and a large conservatory which extends further rearwards. 9. I have noted carefully the submissions made by the appellant in terms of the existing context, which includes the 2-storey extension at No. 4, the northerly aspect of the rear elevation and the submitted sunlight and daylight assessment, which suggests limited losses of light. I have also considered the appellant’s submissions concerning the North Somerset Residential Design Guide – Section 1 Supplementary Planning Document (adopted January 2013) (SPD1) and the application of the 45-degree tests. The appellant points out that, of the 2 tests (height and depth/width), only one needs to be passed, as the SPD1 states that failing one test is ‘unlikely to result in a significant harmful impact.’ 10. However, the specific context and circumstances are important here. Whilst accepting that No 4’s first floor window is, to an extent, compromised by that property’s existing 2-storey extension and its northerly aspect, the appeal proposal would impose a 2-storey wall in very close proximity to the window. Moreover, that wall, including its parapet element, would extend 4.5 metres rearward and this means that the SPD1 first test (depth/width) would be significantly breached. This would result in a severe tunnelling effect, whereby the outlook from No. 4’s window would be flanked, on both sides and in close quarters, by significant building mass. This would be oppressive and overbearing, and would make that room less pleasant to use by occupiers. I assess that the harm would be noticeable and significant. The SPD1 actually makes plain that, even where the 45-degree tests are met, permission may be refused when there is an unacceptable tunnelling effect, which I assess would arise in this case. 11. On the first main issue, I conclude that the proposal would be harmful to the living conditions of occupiers of No. 4 Wick Road. This means that it conflicts with policies DM32 and DM38 of the North Somerset Development Management Policies Plan (Part 1) (adopted July 2016) (DMPP) which, amongst other matters, requires developments to not compromise the living conditions of neighbouring Appeal Decision 6014912 3 properties, including by virtue of any overbearing impact. The proposal also conflicts with the guidance set out in the SPD1 which, similarly, requires extensions to avoid significant harm to the living conditions of neighbouring properties. Character and appearance 12. I have noted and considered the appellant’s submissions that this is a rear extension, designed to be subordinate to the host property and using matching materials. However, it is a large addition to a modest-sized property and my findings on the first main issue, along with the asymmetric gable design, parapet walling, and siting tight up to the property boundary all point to a sub-optimal design. 13. The North Somerset Residential Design Guide – Section 2 Supplementary Planning Document (adopted April 2014) (SPD2) sets out key design principles for house extensions to ensure that they relate well to the character of the original house and the street scene; these include avoiding overly large and inappropriately shaped extensions. Notwithstanding the limited public visibility of the appeal proposal, I consider that it would breach these principles. This, in turn, results in conflict with the design related development plan policies that the SPD is intended to inform. 14. On this main issue, I conclude that the appeal proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. This conflicts with policy CS12 of the North Somerset Council Core Strategy (adopted January 2017), and DMPP policies DM32 and DM38, which, amongst other matters, require developments to achieve high-quality designs that respect local character. Similarly, it conflicts with the guidance set out in the SPD2. Conclusion 15. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is dismissed. P. Staddon INSPECTOR