Appeal 3300980

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development in the heading above has been taken from the Council’s decision notice and differs from that used on the Appellant’s original application. [name] of the appeal form it is stated that the description of development is the same as that used by the Council and as such I have used this description accordingly which I feel accurately represents the scope of the proposals.

The Appellant has stated that the proposed loft conversion has been omitted from the plans. I have no further plans or evidence before me of this other than within their written statement. As such I must therefore base my decision upon the plans that were submitted to the Local Planning Authority as part of the original application and that are the subject of this specific appeal.

The main issue is the impact of the proposal upon the living conditions of neighbours.

[address] is largely characterised by a tree lined residential street of largely 19th century through terrace houses. To the end of [address] the appeal property appears to form part of a more recent development of two storey detached houses. This more recent development appears to primarily address the nearby [address] that runs at right angles to [address]. Despite this the appeal property itself is located to the rear of number 212 Appeal Decision Appeal Ref: APP/G4620/D/22/3300980 [address] and forms part of the streetscene associated with [address]. To the rear of the property is [name] and [name] which appear to be historic buildings.

The property is of a differing design to that of much of [address] being of a modern conical hipped roof design with single storey garage abutting the side boundary. The site appears to have been an infill development upon what must have been a fairly tight plot of land originally. For instance, the property’s rear garden is relatively modest and the house is located relatively tightly against its boundaries with 212 and [address]. Similarly, the property is located only a short distance from number [address] whose side elevation appears to contain several windows.

The proposal before me intends to alter the existing house to something similar to its contemporary neighbours fronting [address] so as to increase the internal accommodation and allow an extended family to live together. In so doing the proposal would see the house change from a hipped roof property to a double fronted gable ended house of considerably greater size and mass.

In assessing this proposal I am aware of the Council’s Residential Design Guidance1 that recommends proposals to allow around 14 metres between rear windowed elevations and adjacent gable walls. In this case the distance between the rear of number [address] and the proposed first floor extension over the existing garage would be much lower than this

The development above the garage would therefore introduce a first storey on top of the existing garage and as such would introduce a much higher gable wall immediately adjacent to the boundary of number [address]. As such I consider that there would be a significant over dominance through this proposal as well as an added impact upon both the daylight and sunlight that would reach the neighbouring properties along [address] as a result.

Similarly, the proposal would enlarge the roof form alongside number [address]. I saw on my site visit that the side elevation of this property does have windows to its existing side elevation and I understand from the Council’s Delegated Report that these windows serve habitable rooms. In considering this appeal therefore I give great weight to need to protect the living conditions of adjoining neighbours and I consider that the proposed change of hip to gable roof form would adversely affect both the amount and quality of daylight reaching these windows. As a result, the proposal would cause harm to the living conditions of neighbours through further reductions in light and the associated dominance of the proposed structure.

[name] also give some weight to the personal needs of the Appellant to accommodate their family under one roof I must balance this against the living conditions of other residents who may be affected. As a result I consider that there would be a harmful and dominant impact of the proposed two storey side extension upon residents of both [address] and [address] and that these impacts would be made noticeably worse through the proposed gable elevation serving the proposed loft conversion. 1 Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council’s Revised Residential Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document 2014 Appeal Decision Appeal Ref: APP/G4620/D/22/3300980

In considering the overall effects of the proposal therefore I conclude that the harm to the living conditions of neighbours would outweigh any personal benefits that may ensure through these proposals. As such I consider that the scheme before me is contrary to Policies ENV3 of the Black Country Core Strategy and Policy EOS9 of the Site Allocations and Delivery Plan Document as well as guidance contained within the Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council Residential [name] (2014) and as such the appeal must fail.

For the reasons outlined above, taking into account all other matters raised, I dismiss the appeal.