AN appeal over a “poorly designed” house extension in Worcester has been dismissed by a planning inspector.

Plans to build a two-storey extension at the back of a house in Tunnel Hill were refused by the city council in April.

The owners of the property took the matter to appeal, where a planning inspector has the power to overturn the council’s decision.

But inspector G Powys Jones agreed with city planners and said the extension would look “oppressive and overbearing” from a neighbouring property.

REFUSED: The design of the extension was called 'unattractive' by a planning inspectorREFUSED: The design of the extension was called 'unattractive' by a planning inspector (Image: Worcester City Council)

They also said the extension would spoil the appearance of the Victorian house.

“Combined with the large, prominent box dormer, I find the proposal to be of a mundane and unattractive design which would completely transform the rear of the attractive Victorian house to its detriment both in terms of its appearance and character,” the planning inspector said.

“I note the appellant’s references to other examples of similar development and the tight knit compact character of local development, but none that I saw has the same detrimental visual effect as the appeal proposal, were it built.

“As the appellant rightly says, the extensions at the rear would hardly be apparent in the public realm. I regard this as the only advantage of the scheme in planning terms.

“However, several neighbours would see the complete poorly-designed development clearly from their gardens, and some from within their houses.”

Worcester City Council previously said: “The design solution for the totality of the extension is unacceptable due to the excessive depth, uncharacteristic flat roof and proposal to finish the extension in cladding.”

Dismissing the appeal, the inspector said the development would be “unneighbourly” and result in “harmful consequences to the immediately neighbouring residents”.

No neighbours had raised any objections to the proposal.

But the inspector said: “ I do not consider this to be decisive since the development would endure for a substantial period of time and, as I have found, is unacceptable from a planning standpoint.”