Just Planning receives hundreds of enquiries every year from householders who have been refused planning permission for extensions to their home.
Many of these relate to common forms of householder development, such as single-storey rear extensions. Although permitted development rights for ground floor extensions were extended in 2013 and renewed in 2019, some councils still refuse permission for extensions of more than around three metres.
We also receive a large number of enquiries about dormer loft extensions. Growing families often look to the loft for extra space, but not all properties benefit from permitted development rights. Councils frequently refuse dormer applications even where very similar development would be permitted in slightly different circumstances, and dormers remain a common source of enforcement problems where homeowners build in good faith.
However, the biggest growth in enquiries in recent years has been in relation to two-storey side extensions.
Councils have increasingly taken the view that this type of development should not be allowed. Some authorities are particularly resistant and refuse most applications of this kind almost as a matter of course.
As a general rule, planners dislike alterations that are clearly visible from the street. Dormers and rear extensions are often hidden from view, whereas two-storey side extensions are not, which makes them unpopular with councils.
Most councils have guidance requiring side extensions to be set back from the front elevation (often by around one metre) and for the ridge to be set lower than the main roof. The stated aim is to ensure that the extension appears subservient and does not overwhelm the original house.
Even where these design principles are met, councils often reject side extensions in principle. Common objections include claims that the extension would unbalance a semi-detached pair or lead to a so-called ‘terracing effect’.
Sometimes these concerns are justified, and careful design is always important. More often, however, the council’s position is not backed up by up-to-date policy or guidance and reflects an overly rigid approach to a form of development they simply do not like.
Councils can be particularly stubborn when it comes to development they are instinctively opposed to.
We see this repeatedly in appeals we handle. For example, in a recent appeal in Croydon, planning permission for a two-storey side extension was refused because it did not comply with guidance, despite very similar extensions already existing in the cul-de-sac. On appeal, the inspector took a more practical view and allowed the scheme.
A similar pattern can be seen elsewhere. The London Borough of Richmond refused planning permission for a two-storey side extension on a street where a large number of similar extensions already existed. We appealed on behalf of the homeowner and won.
Some time later, a neighbour on the same street applied for an almost identical extension, relying on the earlier appeal decision. The council refused the application again. We appealed again — and won again.
It is a basic principle of planning practice that councils should adapt their decision-making in light of appeal decisions. Where inspectors have found a particular form of development acceptable, councils are expected to take that into account rather than repeating the same refusals.
If you have been refused planning permission for a two-storey side extension, you can send us a copy of your decision notice (or email us the planning reference number and your address). We will review the refusal and give you free, honest advice on your prospects at appeal.
