Inspector dismisses Telford homeowner's extension plan appeal

A Telford homeowner has had her bid to erect a rear extension rejected after her appeal was dismissed.

In January, Samantha Sheikh submitted a prior approval application for the proposal relating to a property in Moss Road, Wrockwardine Wood.

"The roof height of the proposed extension will match the existing dwelling eaves and ceiling height," said Ms Sheikh.

"The external appearance will include a low parapet wall design with integrated stormwater drainage behind the parapet wall. The extension will include glazing only to the rear and right aspect (when viewed from the outside rear garden looking back at the house)."

She added that windows and doors, currently aluminium, would be upgraded to uPVC in a light grey colour.

Ms Sheikh also confirmed she did not intend to use the roof as a terrace, and the proposed extension would include the alteration to a simple soil vent pipe.

"This will be carried out in accordance with building regulations, which will be applied for on approval of this application," she said.

"The proposed extension will be flush with the side elevation walls."

However, Telford & Wrekin Council refused the application, believing the proposed scheme could have a significant impact on the dwelling and neighbouring properties.

Planning officer Emma Scott said: "Whilst it has been stated the roof would not be used as a balcony area, it would have the appearance as such within the vicinity with the 1m/1.2m parapet wall proposed.

"Due to the ridge height proposed of a maximum of 4m within 2m of the boundary, it is deemed to have an impact on the adjacent neighbouring property, by virtue of height including the parapet wall."

Ms Sheikh appealed the decision, arguing that the points made by Telford & Wrekin Council were not correct.

"The proposed eaves height will match the existing dwelling as stated in my application description," she said.

"The alteration to a soil pipe is permitted development. I have also provided all information as requested by the LPA (Local Planning Authority) on time.

"Furthermore, as far as I understand, no neighbourhood representations or objections have been made regarding the proposed extension."

Arguing its case, Telford & Wrekin Council said the submitted plans contained significant inconsistencies and contradictions in both the visualisation of the scheme, as well as the physical measurements.

This, it added, prevented the authority and any neighbouring properties from accurately assessing it and any potential impact it may have.

"In the absence of clear, accurate, detailed plans, the LPA has not been able to satisfactorily establish and determine if the proposed scheme could be classed as permitted development, and believe this scheme would not preserve the amenity of neighbouring properties," said a council spokesperson.

The appeal was considered by Pamela Brennan, who said she was unable to ascertain with any certainty the heigh of the existing eaves of the dwelling, the dimensions of the proposed extension, or the extension's proposed eaves.

Planning law states that development is not permitted if it would consist of or include the installation, alteration or replacement of a chimney, flue or soil and vent pipe.

Ms Brennan said he was unable to establish with any confidence that the proposal would meet the requirement, even if the alterations would be permitted development.

"Accordingly, the plans fail to demonstrate that the proposal would not include the installation, alteration or replacement of a chimney, flue or soil and vent pipe," she said.

The inspector added that, while sufficient information had been provided to assess the proposed development's effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, an assessment was not necessary due to her determining that it would not comply with the order's requirements.

Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.