Appeal 3325841

The appeal is dismissed.

In response to a query, the appellant confirmed that the plans on which the Council based its decision were inconsistent with each other. This was mainly because the roof over the side/rear extension would need to be higher than shown on the submitted side elevation drawing. A corrected plan ([name]/343/1A) has now been submitted. The Council does not object to its consideration as part of the appeal process, stating only that the new plan exacerbates its objection. Having regard to the status of this new plan as a correction rather than as an amendment, to the objections received and to the conclusions I reach in this decision, I find no prejudice or procedural unfairness from my consideration of the new plan as part of the appeal proposal1.

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

[site address] is an end of terrace house in a suburban residential area, on a corner plot at the junction of [address] and [address]. The proposal is to build a mainly 2 storey extension to the [address] side of the house, wrapping around to the rear. The corrected plans confirm that the 2 storey 1 With reference to the substantive and procedural tests set out in Holborn Studios Ltd v The Council of the London Borough of Hackney [2017] EWHC 2823. section would be at about the same height as the existing roof, with a small strip of flat roof at the top.

The extension would create a long, bulky, almost blank section of 2 storey high wall sitting at the back of the footway on [address]. This would be an overly dominant and unsympathetic feature, sitting well forward of other houses on that street. It would become the most prominent structure in [address], harming the openness of that street and intruding onto the smaller scale, more modest character and more finely detailed design of the other houses. I did not see any other similar developments and note that the house on the opposite corner remains well back from [address].

The appellant refers to a 2017 planning permission for a similar but somewhat smaller scale extension. It appears that that permission has lapsed and therefore does not form a fall-back position for this appeal. As clarified by the corrected plan, the current proposal’s visual impact would be significantly greater in any case due to the increased roof height compared to the previously approved scheme.

I conclude that the proposal would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the house and the local area. It conflicts with the design aspects of Black Country Core Strategy policy ENV3 and Site Allocations and Delivery Development Plan Document policy SAD EOS9, which seek to ensure high quality design that pays particular attention to the way that development relates to the street.

I have considered all other points raised, including the objections of neighbours and the Highway Authority. I find nothing which overcomes or adds significantly to my concerns about the proposal. For the reasons set out above I conclude that the appeal should not succeed.