We have written before about how councils tend to dislike two-storey side and rear extensions and are often quick to refuse planning permission for them.
This case followed a familiar pattern.
The owners had proposed a two-storey side and rear extension to their house in the London Borough of Croydon. The council refused the application, arguing that the extensions were oversized and would ‘dominate’ the host dwelling.
That position was difficult to justify.
The owners had previously secured planning permission on appeal for very similar extensions on the same house, although those earlier permissions had never been implemented. We pointed out that this was a strong indication that extensions of this general scale and form were acceptable in principle.
We also explained that the design of the proposal was carefully thought through. The extensions integrated well with the existing house, including the use of a matching hipped roof, and did not appear as an awkward or overly bulky addition.
On appeal, the inspector agreed. They concluded that the extensions were appropriate in terms of size and scale and would sit comfortably within what was already a fairly mixed streetscene.
The appeal was allowed and planning permission was granted.
This case is another example of councils placing too much weight on broad design objections, such as alleged dominance, without properly considering context or previous decisions. We see this issue repeatedly with two-storey side and rear extensions, where guidance is applied rigidly and schemes that inspectors later find acceptable are refused at first instance.
Croydon is one of our busiest boroughs for planning appeals, and we regularly deal with refusals for larger householder extensions as part of our planning appeals work in Croydon.
If you are facing similar difficulties with a planning application, particularly where a council is relying on generalised design objections, it may well be worth challenging the decision.
