Appeal 6000659

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant made an application for costs. This application for costs has been dealt with in a separate decision.

The Council's decision notice referred to alleged inaccuracies in the submitted plans. For the avoidance of doubt, I have determined the appeal on the basis of the information before me (which includes scaled plans), and what I saw on site.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: • the character and appearance of the area; and • the living conditions of the occupiers of [address], with particular regard to light, privacy, and outlook.

The appeal site comprises [site address] (No 51), a 2-storey semi-detached dwelling situated on a prominent corner plot in a predominantly residential area. In common with many other semi-detached pairs in the locality, No 51 has a largely symmetrical design in comparison with the other half of the semi-detached pair of which it forms a part ([address] (No 1)). Short terraces of dwellings are also present nearby, with each dwelling generally conforming to the rest of the group in terms of their scale and massing. The gaps present to the side of dwellings serve to break up the mass of built form in this tight-knit residential area. This includes the gap to the side of No 51, which due to its size is particularly effective in this respect.

The proposed development would enlarge No 51 to the side and the rear. The 2- storey side extension element of the proposed development would extend No 51 to the side by a significant margin, over 2 levels. In doing so, it would introduce a wide area of roof to No 51’s front elevation, which would be attached to the newly-formed hipped end roof section. The increase in massing caused by the 2-storey side extension would be considerable. It would appear as an unduly bulky addition to No 51.

Furthermore, No 51 would no longer be reflective of No 1 in terms of No 51’s scale and massing. The pair would appear noticeably imbalanced in the street scene. Their presently attractive visual contribution to the street scene in their prominent location would be severely compromised. Moreover, the proposed 2-storey side extension would erode much of the gap to the side of No 51 referred to above. This would reduce the contribution which the site makes to the sense of spaciousness in the area. Harm to the character and appearance of the area would result.

Reference has been made to a planning permission for a ground floor extension. However, no plans or drawings have been provided to illustrate the nature of this development. Considering this, and as the proposed development relates to development of up to 2 storeys rather than a single storey, it has not been demonstrated that this permission is directly comparable with the proposed development. This is not a matter which alters my findings on this main issue.

I therefore find that the proposed development would have an unacceptable and harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. It would conflict with part I. of Policy GP2 of the Walsall Unitary Development Plan (adopted 2005) (UDP) which lists visual appearance as a matter to be taken into account in terms of environmental protection, and with Policy ENV32 of the UDP which provides that, amongst other things, poorly designed development or proposals which fail to properly take account of the context or surroundings will not be permitted.

The proposed development would also conflict with Policies CSP4, ENV2, and ENV3 of the Black Country Core Strategy (adopted 2011) (BCCS), which collectively seek to, amongst other things, preserve and, where appropriate, enhance local character.

The appellant has claimed that the first floor windows at No 1 which are closest to No 51 serve a bathroom. I visited No 1 during my site visit, but I was not granted access to the room in question. Therefore, I was not able to verify this. Nevertheless, the Council have conceded that this room is non-habitable. Moreover, the overall design and external window placement of the 2 dwellings is very similar, which indicates that No 1 may mirror No 51 internally. In this regard, the plans before me show that the first floor windows at No 51 which are closest to No 1 serve a bathroom. Hence, whilst due to the limited information before me I cannot be definitive on this point, on a balance of probabilities it appears likely that the room in question at No 1 also serves a bathroom, i.e. a non-habitable room.

The Council’s concerns, as expressed in the [name], relate to the nearest habitable room window at first floor level at No 1. Even if the proposed development would breach the 45-degree guideline referred to by the Council, as these windows likely serve a non-habitable room, no harm would be caused to the living conditions of the occupiers of No 1.

I therefore find that the proposed development would have an acceptable effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 1, with particular regard to light, privacy, and outlook. It would comply with Policies GP2 and ENV32 of the UDP, and Policies CSP4, ENV2, and ENV3 of the BCCS, which collectively seek to ensure that, amongst other things, all developments make a positive contribution to the quality of the environment and the principles of sustainable development.

The finding on the 2nd main issue above, in relation to living conditions, is a neutral matter, which does not weigh in favour of the proposed development. The conduct of the Council during the processing of the planning application is not a matter that I can assess in the context of a planning appeal.

The proposed development would enlarge the available accommodation at No 51. This would benefit its current and future occupiers. As this would mainly comprise a private benefit, it merits little weight in support of the proposed development.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that the creation of high quality places is fundamental to what the planning and development process should achieve. The proposed development would not contribute towards this aspiration. Overall, none of the relevant material considerations indicate that this appeal should be decided otherwise than in accordance with the development plan.

For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole, the approach in the Framework, and all other relevant material considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.