A DECISION that denied a side extension to a house in a village conservation area but allowed one at the back of the property has been upheld at appeal.

Kelly Bendon had applied for planning permission for the two extensions to provide “much needed family accommodation” but was told, in March 2025, only the single storey at the back of her home would be allowed.

Planners said her plan for a two-storey extension, effectively adding an upper floor to an existing side extension, to her prominent corner plot home at the entrance of the Bersondy cul-de-sac in the Llanarth Conservation Area would fail to “preserve the character” of the protected area.

An independent inspector to the village between Abergavenny and Raglan to consider her case.

But Ms Hughson-Smith backed the “spilt decision” by Monmouthshire County Council’s planning department which only allowed the single storey extension planned to stretch across the width of the rear of the main house, part of the cul-de-sac recognised as 20th century “in fill development” in the Conservation Area Appraisal.

In her decision report the inspector said: “Given the appeal property’s prominent corner position, this would introduce an uncharacteristic and imposing façade that would appear as a discordant feature when entering the cul-de-sac.

“Overall, the proposed development would result in an overly dominant and unsympathetic addition that would disrupt the consistent character of the cul-de-sac and undermine its positive contribution to the conservation area.”

She also dismissed Mrs Bendon’s suggestion landscaping could “soften and screen” the extension. The inspector said: “Landscaping should not be used to screen otherwise unacceptable development and, therefore, a condition to this effect would not be appropriate.”

Ms Hughson-Smith acknowledged the side extension would “provide some benefit to the appellants in terms of additional accommodation for their family”.

Find out about planning applications that affect you by visiting the Public Notice Portal.

However she said the benefit was “limited” and wouldn’t “outweigh the significant harm” as the extension would fail to enhance or preserve the character or appearance of the conservation area, which is at odds with the council’s planning policies.