In article , Nambucca wrote:
I will bet I even know which LA you are in
They have this crazy theory that setting back makes extentions
subserviant

Somehow I doubt that you know which LA it is as loads of them have this
policy: type "side extension setback planning" into Google and several
references on the first page spell this out, e.g Trafford

"EITHER a minimum space of 1m should be preserved between the extension
and the party boundary to the side of the property, OR the front wall
of the first floor of the extension should be set back at least 1m from
the immediately adjoining part of the main front wall of the original
dwelling.

The above requirement may be relaxed if, because of a staggered or
irregular arrangement of the dwellings in the street, the construction
of the extension would not create an actual or potential terracing
effect"

Defeated that nonsense on appeal

I don't doubt that in a particular case you might win on appeal, but I
would only expect to win if you can argue that the general policy has
been misapplied in the particular case being appealed.

If you want real daftness wrt 2-storey side extensions, a relative's
one was turned down because it represented an unacceptable extension
into the Green Belt (the existing house was a small cottage in GB). A
single storey side extension taking up the same footprint was allowed
as the amount of additional floorspace was within permitted limits.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm