Appeal 3343638

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development is taken from the application form. In the decision letter, the Council refer to the proposed development as a “double storey side extension and single storey rear extension.”

One of the Council’s reasons for refusal related to outdoor amenity space. Further to my site visit, I am satisfied that the appeal property comprises a large plot with private outdoor space to the front and rear and there is no substantive evidence before me to demonstrate that any significant harm would arise from the proposal with regards the availability of sufficient private amenity space. Consequently, the main issues in this case are those set out below.

The main issues in this case are the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area; and its effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of Number [address], with regards to outlook.

The appeal property is a brick-built two storey semi-detached dwelling with a pitched tile roof. The dwelling is set back from the road behind a large parking area and garden. To the rear, there is a patio and garden area and a large outbuilding, which stretches across much of the width of the back of the rear garden.

The appeal property is located in a residential area characterised by the presence of mostly two storey semi-detached dwellings, similar in appearance and set back behind gardens and/or parking areas, with gardens to the rear.

During my site visit, I noted that the presence of public green space combines with that of gardens and the setting back of dwellings to provide for a pleasant green and spacious character. This sense of spaciousness is enhanced by the presence of notable gaps at first floor level between pairs of dwellings.

I also observed that whilst many dwellings have been extended and/or altered, such changes tend to appear in keeping with the host dwelling and the character of the area; and that the similarity of the appearance of dwellings results in an attractive sense of uniformity.

The appeal property is located such that it sits well behind Number [address]. As a consequence of this juxtaposition of the dwellings, the side elevation of the appeal dwelling is located directly alongside No 64’s rear garden. 10.The proposed side extension’s roof form would fail to correspond with and would appear starkly different to, that of the host dwelling. Consequently, the proposal would result in the introduction of an incongruous form of development out of keeping with its surroundings. 11.The visual harm arising from this would be exacerbated as a result of the introduction of a window which would appear out of alignment with the existing fenestration and further, by the forward projection of the extension, such that it would appear awkward and unduly prominent when seen alongside the existing porchway. 12.The addition of a front door would further unbalance the appearance of the host dwelling’s front elevation and would, together with the two-storey side projection, result in a form of development that would introduce a terracing effect to an area otherwise notable for its spacious qualities. 13.The proposal would also introduce a cramped form of development, appearing “squeezed into” its surroundings and out of character with the surrounding area’s identified attributes. 14.Taking all of this into account, I find that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework; to Black Country Core Strategy (2011) Policies CSP4 and ENV3; to saved Wolverhampton Unitary Development Plan (2006) (UDP) Policies D4, D6, D8 and D9; and to the Council’s Extensions to Houses Supplementary Planning Guidance (1996) (SPG), which together amongst other things, seek to protect local character. Living Conditions 15.The proposed development would extend the appeal dwelling to the side and rear. This would result in the introduction of a tall first floor extension immediately alongside that part of No 64’s rear garden closest to its rear elevation and also, in a single storey extension that would project immediately alongside No 64’s rear garden for some considerable distance. 2 16.I consider that the scale, height and rearwards projection of the proposed development would, when combined with the appeal property’s existing large outbuilding visible from the rear of No 64, result in the outlook from that dwelling being unduly dominated by built development of such scale and proximity as to appear obtrusive and overbearing. 17.Consequently, I find that the proposed development would harm the living conditions of the occupiers of Number [address] with regards to outlook, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework; to UDP Policy D8; and to the Council’s Extensions to [name], which together amongst other things, seek to protect residential amenity.