Appeal 3295870

The appeal is dismissed.

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

[address] is part of a wider residential neighbourhood with a very distinctive character with the street scenes strongly defined by two dwelling types, being either bungalows or detached two-storey houses, all with open plan frontages. There is a clearly defined sense of place that is derived from the simplicity and uniformity of the architecture including through the consistent use of materials and detailing, and the noticeable presence of single gabled elevations, regardless of a dwelling’s orientation relative to the road. No 2 occupies a corner plot at the junction where [address] joins [address] and is a prominent building, owing to its exposed position and its elevated levels due to the topography of the land. Although it has been extended, the side addition is appropriately subservient to the form of the original dwelling which remains dominant and consistent with the cohesive style of the architecture within the wider area.

The proposal would include a second gabled extension to the flank of the original building, identical in scale and form to the existing. The two additions would be linked with a centrally positioned small section of flat roof.

I accept that there would be a degree of unity and harmony between the two side extensions. However, they would combine to dominate the flank elevation of the building which is exposed to view. The double gable would be uncharacteristic and, together with its flat roof link, would be out of keeping with the simple and uncomplicated composition of the original building, which would be entirely remodelled when seen from the principal approach along [address].

The extension would be well set back from the boundary of the site with the adjoining pavement, and I could place no particular significance to the forward alignment of dwellings at this point. Nevertheless, overall, I find that the building would stand out as an obviously altered dwelling that would appear unsympathetic to the rhythm and harmony of the area. As such, I do not share the appellant’s view that the proposal would make a positive contribution to the street scene.

For the reasons given, I find that the extension would be unsympathetic with, and poorly related to, the simple form of the dwelling, which otherwise contributes positively to a strong sense of place through its cohesive design and appearance. The result would be a building that would look incongruous and out of character in its setting. In this regard it would fail to enhance local character and promote local distinctiveness in conflict with Policy ENV2 of the Black Country Core Strategy 2011 and would also conflict with the similar requirements of Policies S6 and L1 of the Dudley Borough Development Strategy 2017. There would also be conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework’s objectives for achieving well-designed places.

I appreciate that the appellant requires the space to accommodate the needs of an elderly disabled relative. However, when weighed in the balance, this need does not outweigh the harm that I have identified. Accordingly, and having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is dismissed.