Appeal 3360964

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of a part two storey/first floor side extension at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref P24/1159, subject to the following

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

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following drawings: Location Plan, Block Plan, [name].1, [name].2, Existing Ground Floor Plan Drawing No.3, Existing First Floor Plan Drawing No.4, [name] No15 and No17 [name].5, [name] No17 and No15 [name].6, [name].7, [name].8, [name].9, Proposed Ground Floor Plan Drawing No.10, [name], Proposed First Floor Plan Drawing No.11.

The external materials of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The main issue of the appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area.

[site address] is a semi-detached property which sits at a lower ground level to the highway. The appeal site benefits from a generous amount of on-site parking to the front of the property which results in the dwelling being set back a considerable distance from the highway. The existing dwelling has a single storey side extension which adjoins to the property’s garage. These single storey elements are slightly set back behind the front wall of the host dwelling.

The proposal is for the erection of a part two storey/first floor side extension, which will bring the side element forward so that it sits in line with the front wall of the host dwelling. The materials are proposed to match the existing.

The surrounding built form varies in design and form, and there is not considered to be a distinct building line along [address]. There is a mixture of properties ranging from semi-detached houses to flats. Whilst many of the semi-detached houses appear similar there are many properties that do not conform to one singular design. This is demonstrated by the flats and semi-detached properties situated near the appeal site on a corner plot where [address] meets [address].

The variation of spacing between properties along [address] widely differs, and the degree of separation between the appeal building and its neighbour to the west appeared to be greater than many of the other gaps seen between dwellings in this part of [address].

There is no uniform character within the street scene of [address]. Given the variety in character, I do not consider that the design or scale of the proposal would be an incongruous addition to the street scene. Taking this into account, I do not consider the proposal contrary to Policy ENV2 of the Black Country Core Strategy (2011).

The proposal, in relation to its surrounding context, would be inconspicuous due to the setback nature of the host dwelling. The partial closing of the existing gap is also not considered to harm the appearance of the area, as the resulting gap will be similar to what is already seen between many of the semi-detached properties along [address].

Regarding the prominence of the development, I agree that the proposal will not appear as subservient to the host dwelling. Rather, it will appear as though one of the pair of semi-detached houses has been elongated, which will, to an extent unbalance the pair of semi-detached properties. However, I consider that even if the extension were to be set back and its ridge height lowered, this would still disrupt the balance seen between the pair. [name] agree that the proposal would lack subservience to the host dwelling, I do not consider that this would translate as being harmful within the context of the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area.

Policies S6 and L1 of the Dudley Borough Development Strategy set out that development will only be permitted provided that the design is appropriate in form, siting and scale, responsive to the surrounding area. I have paid regard to the host dwelling’s degree of separation from its detached neighbour, the amount it is set back from the highway and the lower ground level it sits on. Accordingly, and in light of the above, I consider the development appropriate in relation to its surrounding context. Consequently, the proposal accords with the aims of Policies S6 and L1 of the Dudley Borough Development Strategy.

Consequently, the proposed development would not conflict with Policy ENV2 of the Black Country Core Strategy (2011), which aims to protect local distinctiveness, and Policies S6 and L1 of the Dudley Borough Development Strategy (2017), which, amongst other matters, require development to be appropriately designed so that it responds to the character of the area. Whilst the proposal does not necessarily accord with all the technical guidance set out within the Dudley Council Residential Design Guide in terms of the depth of the extension, the proposal complies with the relevant development plan policies and the overall aims of the guidance in that it seeks well designed extensions that do not have an adverse effect on character and appearance.

In addition to the standard three-year period implementation condition, which is a statutory requirement, it is necessary, in the interest of certainty, to define the plans with which the appeal scheme should accord. In order to protect the character and appearance of the surrounding area and the host dwelling, I am attaching a condition requiring materials used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development to match those used in the existing building.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be allowed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed.