Appeal 3288464

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.

[address] is residential in character and the majority of the dwellings along this road are arranged in pairs with most of these pairs of dwellings retaining gaps between them of various sizes. In particular, on the side of the road on which the appeal property is located, the gaps between dwellings are wider than the opposite side. These gaps are formed by the undeveloped areas above side passageways and garages, and accesses to garages located to the rear of dwellings.

The host property incorporates a garage that extends along the ground floor to the shared side boundary with [address]. The lack of development above this garage and at the first-floor level of [address] contribute to an appreciable gap between these properties at first floor level. This gap is similar to others between neighbouring dwellings and reinforces the character and appearance of the street scene.

To this end, I note the Council’s concerns about the infilling of gaps between dwellings resulting in terracing. Indeed, the [address] Extension Guidelines Supplementary Planning Document (2010) (‘SPD’) states in regard to first floor side extensions: “Any terracing effect between dwellings is to be avoided. A reasonable gap to the boundary must be retained of at least 1- metre in most cases”.

The proposed first floor extension would be set back from the front elevation of the host property and designed to incorporate a subservient roof design. However, this would extend up to the shared side boundary with [address]. Because of its width the proposed first floor extension would have an erosive effect on the gap between this property and [address].

Moreover, if a similar extension or one which only extends above the garage of [address] were to be erected, the gap retained between these properties would be uncharacteristic of the street scene. As such, the proposed arrangement is considered to be insufficient to prevent terracing and for retaining the character and appearance of the street scene.

The adjoining semi to the appeal property ([address]) incorporates a first-floor extension which is flush with the front of that property and extends to the side boundary. However, on the information before me this predates the Council’s development plan and SPG and is not reflective of first floor extensions in the area.

For the above reasons, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area and conflicts with Policy P15 of the Solihull Local Plan - Shaping a [name], December 2013. This Policy seeks to ensure that development proposals achieve good quality, inclusive and sustainable design that conserves and enhances the local character, distinctiveness and streetscape quality.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.