Appeal 3304347

The appeal is dismissed.

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

The appeal site is located on a prominent corner to the side of [site address] [site address] (No [site address] ). No [site address] is the end dwelling of a row of four two-storey terraced dwellings whose consistency of design, width, scale, fenestration rhythm and materials lend a pleasant uniformity to the street scene which contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area.

The terraced dwellings are set back from the road within an established building line. Although plot sizes vary, the end corner plots have relatively more space around them than the other dwellings. This conveys a sense of space and contributes to the open character of the area.

The front elevation of the proposed extension would be aligned with the main front elevation of No [site address] , and consequently the proposal would not appear as a subservient addition to the existing building. Furthermore, the proposal’s width and scale would introduce significant bulk to the side of the building. In addition, the proposal’s side elevation would have a bland appearance. Therefore, the proposal would appear as a highly visible, dominant, and incongruous feature within the street scene.

The proposal’s roof form would comprise of a flat roof and mock pitch on all elevations. This contrived roof form would be at odds with the existing roof form of No [site address] and would interrupt the roof profile of this group of dwellings. This would detract from the street-scene and have a detrimental effect on the character and appearance of the area.

These factors would combine to unacceptably disrupt the uniform rhythm and symmetry of the terrace, adversely affecting its collective harmony. Furthermore, the presence and massing of the proposed extension would significantly erode the sense of openness of this prominent corner plot.

Therefore, I conclude the proposal would have a harmful effect upon the character and appearance of the area. As such, the proposal would fail to accord with Policies L1 and S6 of the Dudley Borough Development Strategy (2017), and Policy ENV2 of the Black Country Core Strategy (2011). Collectively, these policies amongst other things, seek to ensure new development is appropriately designed and respects the context and character of the local area. The proposal would also conflict with the Council’s Planning Guidance Note No. 17: [name] (PGN17), which, amongst other things, seeks to ensure extensions relate to the design of the original building.

In addition, the proposal would fail to accord to the design objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.

The design and siting of the proposed extension would not be detrimental to the living conditions of any neighbours. Nevertheless, a lack of harm in this regard does not weigh in favour of the proposal.

In the appellant’s statement he refers to a 3.6 width 2-storey extension. However, there is no information before me which indicates the design such a development might take, or the likelihood of such a course of action being pursued. On this basis, it carries little weight in my decision, and is not sufficient to outweigh the harm I have identified.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole, and there are no material considerations worthy of sufficient weight that would indicate a decision other than in accordance with it. The appeal is therefore dismissed.