# PLANNING PERMISSION APPEAL LETTER
Date: 20 May 2032
Parties: Oliver Grant and West Mercia District Council
## 1. Purpose and parties
Oliver Grant, the owner and appellant for 7 Hazel View, Shrewsbury SY3 8DN, appeals to the Planning Inspectorate against West Mercia District Council's refusal of householder application WM/32/0147/H on 12 May 2032. The application sought a single-storey rear extension measuring 3.2 metres deep by 5.4 metres wide, with a pitched roof, two rooflights and matching brickwork. The appeal is lodged on 20 May 2032, well within the 12-week householder appeal period ending 4 August 2032.
## 2. Facts, scope and terms
The Council's sole reason for refusal says that the extension would harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the Hazel View street scene by appearing overly wide and visually dominant. Oliver disagrees. The extension is set behind the existing rear building line, remains subordinate to the house, keeps a 1.8-metre gap to the eastern boundary, and uses brick, window proportions and roof tiles matching the existing dwelling. The submitted plan also keeps 62% of the rear garden as open space.
## 3. Process and responsibilities
The design responds to policy WMH4 of the adopted West Mercia Local Plan, which supports domestic extensions that respect scale, form, materials, privacy and garden space. It also accords with the National Planning Policy Framework's objective of good design. The rear elevation cannot be seen from the public highway, and a daylight and privacy note demonstrates that the nearest neighbour at 9 Hazel View receives no material loss of light and no direct overlooking from the proposed rooflights.
## 4. Evidence, records and safeguards
There is relevant local precedent. The Council approved 5 Hazel View application WM/29/0081/H on 16 September 2029 for a 3.0-metre rear extension, 11 Hazel View application WM/30/0216/H on 4 February 2030 for a 3.5-metre extension, and 3 Hazel View application WM/31/0199/H on 22 November 2031 for a 3.1-metre extension. The appeal proposal is only 0.2 metres deeper than the first precedent, is screened by existing garden planting, and does not project beyond the prevailing rear building line. Those decisions are material context, while Oliver accepts that each application must be decided on its own facts.
## 5. Review, escalation and outcome
Oliver proposes conditions requiring the development to follow drawing HZ-07 revision C dated 6 May 2032, use reclaimed red brick and matching tiles, install obscure glazing to the side-facing bathroom window, and complete the extension before its use as an additional living room. He accepts a condition requiring construction hours of 8:00 to 18:00 Monday to Friday and 9:00 to 13:00 Saturday, with no construction on Sunday or bank holidays. No fee is payable for this householder appeal.
## 6. Reservations and practical protections
The appeal bundle contains the application form, decision notice, location plan, existing and proposed floor plans, elevations, Design and Access Statement, photographs taken on 7 May 2032, the three comparable decision notices, the neighbour consultation summary and the daylight and privacy note. No immediate neighbours objected during consultation. Oliver asks for written representations, will answer any Inspector's procedural request by its deadline, and consents to a site visit if the Inspector considers one useful.
## 7. England and Wales law and completion
This completed fictional appeal is dated 20 May 2032 and is governed procedurally by the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 section 78 and applicable Planning Inspectorate rules. Oliver asks the Inspector to allow the appeal and grant planning permission subject to the proposed conditions, or alternatively to allow the appeal with conditions the Inspector considers necessary. The letter does not authorise construction before permission and retains all rights to submit a revised application.