Appeal 6000679

The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for loft conversion at [site address] [site address] , Penn, Wolverhampton [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/00595/FUL, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plan, [name]: BV/480/0B.

An application for costs was made by the appellant against the Council. This is subject of a separate decision.

The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area and whether it would preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the [site address] (Penn) Conservation Area.

The appeal property is located in the [site address] (Penn) Conservation Area (VRCA). I have therefore approached this appeal in the context of Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act), which requires special attention be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character and appearance of the VRCA.

From the evidence before me and my observations on site, the significance of the VRCA derives from the architectural value of the historic buildings and how their layout and composition relate to the evolution of the area. The [site address] (Penn) Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan (2022) (CAAMP) identifies the special interest of [site address] to be in its retained sense of rural seclusion.

With regards to this appeal, the CAAMP explains that within the VRCA residential dwellings dominate the streetscape. The scale and mass of the buildings are representative of domestic and vernacular architecture. Roofs are typically clad in slate or plain clay tiles. Decorative ridge tiles, chimneys and the variation in building heights due to scale and land levels, mean that roofs punctuate the sky line, and this contributes to the area’s character. There is no dominant building style, which gives the VRCA a varied and visually interesting appearance. The intermixing of older and modern properties adds an element of variety to the visual palette of the area, although the introduction of modern materials, such as uPVC windows or elements such as hanging tiles and cladding which are atypical for the region, does dilute the traditional appearance and local distinctiveness of the Conservation Area.

The appeal property is a two-storey semi-detached dwelling with a basement, which was built as part of the original small historic village of [name]. Owing to the rising landform, it is positioned well above [site address] and set back quite a distance from the highway. This results in a larger front garden and a higher ridge height than neighbouring houses. However, its set back position and the presence of mature frontage trees mean it is not prominent within the street scene.

The original house appears largely unaltered, retaining a simple form with a hipped roof and chimney stacks. As such, it makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance and significance of the VRCA.

The proposed rear dormer would be modest in size, set in from the roof edges, and positioned below the ridge and above the eaves. The window would be a similar size to others on the rear elevation and, although the framing would be slightly larger, the scale and massing of the dormer would appear proportionate to the host dwelling and consistent with domestic vernacular forms. While incorporating a flat roof, its simple design and use of corresponding materials, despite including hanging tiles, would allow it to integrate appropriately with the existing roofscape.

The proposed rear dormer would be visible only from the closed end of [address] and from a limited number of neighbouring properties or their rear gardens. Few of these views would be direct, and none are identified as important within the CAAMP. In these views, the dormer would be read against the main roof slope, aiding its assimilation with the host dwelling. I also noted there were some tall, mature trees within the rear garden, which would provide substantial screening during the summer months when in leaf.

Dormer windows are not a typical feature of the VRCA. However, during my visit I observed that they are present within the wider area and are visible on several properties adjoining the VRCA in views from within it. Notably, No. 34 [site address] , which lies within the VRCA, incorporates a prominent modern dormer on its side elevation that is clearly evident in the street scene. Although the examples nearby are largely on more modern dwellings and mostly outside the VRCA, they nonetheless form part of the established streetscape. In this context, the proposed dormer would not appear out of keeping or unduly alien.

Overall, while a more traditional Victorian-style dormer with a pitched roof might better reflect the age and architecture of the host dwelling, the proposal would not introduce an incongruous feature. It would not harm the roofscape or skyline of the VRCA, nor would it appear obtrusive. Consequently, it would not diminish the architectural value of the appeal property to an extent that would undermine the traditional appearance or local distinctiveness of the VRCA. Furthermore, although the conversion would add another floor to the appeal property, the dwelling would retain its two-storey scale and appearance, consistent with others in the VRCA. The proposal would also preserve the sense of rural seclusion along [site address] , which is a key characteristic of its special interest.

Accordingly, for the reasons above, the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the area, nor would it harm the character and appearance or the significance of the VRCA. It would comply with Policies ENV2 and ENV3 of the Black Country Core Strategy (2011), which require development to protect and promote the special qualities, historic character and local distinctiveness of the Black Country. It would also comply with Policies HE5, D6 and D9 of the Wolverhampton Unitary Development Plan 2001 – 2011 (2006), which seek to protect the character and appearance of conservation areas and their settings, reinforce local distinctiveness and ensure good townscape and landscape quality through, among other things, appropriate form, detailing and materials.

In addition to the standard time limit, a condition specifying the approved plans and that the development is carried out in accordance with those plans is necessary for certainty. As the approved plans specify the external materials, no separate materials condition is required.

For the reasons above, I find that the proposal would accord with the development plan, read as a whole. Having had regard to all relevant material considerations, it has not been demonstrated that there are any of sufficient weight to indicate that a decision should be taken otherwise in accordance with it. The appeal is therefore allowed, subject to the conditions set out above.