Telford householder refused permission for 'overbearing' extension challenges council
A householder denied retrospective permission for an extension he had built at his Telford home has taken his case to appeal.
Officials at Telford & Wrekin Council had rejected the application after finding that the details of the house in Harvey Crescent, Arleston, did not match what had been given permission.
Work on a single-storey side extension and front porch had been finished in September 2025.
But planners found that the garage at Imran Price’s house had a dual-pitch roof instead of an approved hipped roof, and was some 77cm (30 inches) higher than permitted.
Planners wrote that it is “considered disproportionate in size in relation to the existing host dwelling, being substantial in scale and massing”.
Officials took the view that it is “an overbearing development which is not deemed subservient to the dwelling nor does it respond positively to the context of the street scene, the local area or with the adjoining neighbouring properties”.
Planning agent Just Planning has told the planning inspector that the plan does comply with relevant development plan policies and permission should be granted.
The agent challenges the officials’ “qualitative assessment” of the impact on the house itself and the character of the street.
“The officer’s report identifies that the side extension as built is taller than approved under the 2023 permission and incorporates a dual-pitched roof rather than a hipped roof.
“However, the report does not go on to explain why those differences result in material harm to the character of the dwelling or the area.
“The existence of differences from an approved scheme is not, in itself, a reason for refusal.”
The agent says that as a whole the “development does not result in an overbearing or dominant form of development when assessed against the actual, evolved form of the dwelling and its surroundings”.
“The council’s assessment gives disproportionate weight to previous officer comments suggesting that the site’s development potential had been ‘maximised’, a statement which has no policy basis and cannot, in itself, preclude further development where that development is otherwise acceptable on its merits.”
The council sent consultation letters to 11 neighbouring properties but received no comments by the time of the decision.
A planning inspector is set to decide the issue on the basis of written statements from the council and the applicant.
