Appeal 3350331

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of first floor and two-storey front extension at [site address] , in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 24/00498/FUL, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building

the development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans Refs 24062 001 and 24062 002 B.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed additions to the front of the building on the character and appearance of the house itself and the wider street scene of [address].

The appeal property comprises a two-storey, detached, pitch-roofed house with its main roof slope facing the street but with a secondary front-facing gable and a forward-projecting flat-roofed garage. The house is set back within a substantial plot behind a paved forecourt. The property retains its original, relatively simple form that was evidently characteristic of [address] as a whole.

The proposed works would add a central front gable above the existing porch to create an atrium and a further gable-fronted first floor extension over part of the present garage, projecting forward of the main elevation. The new gables would have extensive glazing with vertical emphasis, in contrast with the existing fenestration of the present front gable. The development would thus dramatically alter the visual character of the house, especially when viewed from the street.

The Council maintains that, due to their height, bulk, and part forward projection, these built additions would be incongruous in appearance and would excessively dominate the front of the dwelling, detracting from its character and appearance with competing, forward-projecting gabled elements and having an adverse impact on the street scene.

Although the works would result in triple front gables, the first-floor footprint would only be increased over part of the garage and I do not consider that the extensions would be overly dominant in terms of their bulk and height. I accept that the proposed, highly glazed front gables would be visually at some variance with the one existing but I also see a degree of intrinsic harmony in the form and detailing of the design, such that the scheme is reasonably to be regarded as one of acceptable modernisation.

As for the wider street scene of [address], its original uniformity has been significantly eroded by an eclectic range of front extensions and alterations. Whilst the proposed frontal additions and alterations to No 8 would make the house much more distinctive and prominent, in my judgement it would not harm the street scene unacceptably in present circumstances.

Overall, I consider that the proposed development would amount to a positive addition to the appeal property of good design quality in the context of the street scene, respectful in scale, height, massing and design towards existing local character and urban grain. Therefore, the proposal is to be regarded as compliant with the relevant policies cited by the Council; namely D4, D6-9 and H6 of the adopted Wolverhampton Unitary Development Plan, ENV2-3 of the adopted Black Country Core Strategy, and [name] of the Tettenhall Neighbourhood Plan, all as supported by Supplementary Planning Guidance No 4 on Extensions to Houses.

For these reasons I conclude that the appeal should be allowed, subject to the standard conditions set out above.