Appeal 6000997

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs was made by [name] against Wolverhampton City Council. This application is the subject of a separate Decision.

The description above is taken from the application form. The Council’s decision notice and the appellant’s Design and [name] refer to a ‘3-bed dormer bungalow’. However, the submitted plans do not show a dormer bungalow as there are no dormer windows shown installed in the roof slopes. Nor do the submitted floor plans show any stairs leading to accommodation on an upper floor or in the roof space. Furthermore, fig 4 of the appellant’s Appeal Statement shows an image of the proposed bungalow (for the purpose of comparison with an approved extension) that corresponds with the submitted plans and which does not show dormer windows. I also note that the submitted floor plan titled “[name]: Single storey only” shows 2 bedrooms, not 3. The title plan would also seem to suggest that the proposal has been amended at some stage.

Therefore, there is a discrepancy between the various descriptions of development and the plans. It is unclear if and when an amended scheme was submitted, whether an amended scheme has been consulted on and what plans and type of bungalow the Council actually made its decision on. The Council has not submitted an appeal statement or officer report but it relies on its decision notice.

For the avoidance of doubt, I have determined the appeal based on the submitted plans that show a detached 2-bedroom bungalow (not a dormer bungalow), notwithstanding the varying descriptions used by the appellant and the Council. Even if I had considered a dormer bungalow it would not have changed the outcome.

The main issues in this appeal are: • The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, • The effect of the proposal on the living conditions of occupiers of the existing dwelling with regard to outlook, • Whether the proposed development would provide acceptable living conditions for future and existing residents with regard to private outside space, and • The effect of the parking provision on the streetscene.

The appeal site occupies a corner plot with [address] at the entrance to [address], a cul-de-sac. Most properties are two storey dwellings, with the appeal site and adjacent plot (No.12) being bungalows. Despite some variation of dwelling design, there is a relative uniformity to the layout of the street, with dwellings set back from the road with sizeable front gardens, driveways and integral double garages. Plot widths are relatively similar, although the bungalows have wider plots and more space between them. Being on a corner, the appeal plot is slightly bigger than most. However, the overall uniformity and relationship of buildings and spaces create a generally spacious character and appearance to this short residential street, which forms part of a wider housing estate.

The proposal would involve demolishing the existing brick outbuilding, that looks as if it was once a garage with a driveway outside onto the cul-de-sac, to create more garden space for the dwelling that would be retained. A new bungalow would be erected between the demolished garage and the adjacent property No.12, who have their garage and driveway along the shared boundary. A new driveway would be created in front of the new dwelling, sufficient for [address] side by side.

The new plot would be narrower than prevailing plot widths in the cul-de-sac, and significantly less than the width of the bungalow plots. The proposed dwelling would also fit tightly between the newly created boundary with No.14 and the side boundary with No.12, reducing the open space between them. As a result the proposal would appear cramped and shoehorned between existing development and at odds with the prevailing pattern of development in [address]. The proposal would therefore harm the open and spacious character and appearance of the cul-de-sac.

Accordingly, the proposal would be contrary to Policy ENV3 of the Black Country Core Strategy (the [name]), Policies D1, D4 and D5 of the Wolverhampton Unitary Development Plan 2001-2011 (the UDP). Whilst the Council’s decision notice does not specify which part of the Tettenhall Neighbourhood Plan (the TNP) the proposal would conflict with, the Council has submitted a copy of Policy TNP12 [name] with their appeal documentation. Collectively these policies seek, amongst other things, to ensure development is of a high quality, that it responds positively to the established pattern of streets, buildings, spaces, and the spatial character of the area, including plot sizes, and does not result in overdevelopment or cramped layouts. It would also be contrary to guidance in the Supplementary Planning Guidance Note No.3 “Residential Development” (the [name]).

The proposed bungalow and its side gable end would be sited about 8.2 metres away from the rear elevation of the existing dwelling. This would be contrary to the advice in the [name] that recommends a 12 metre distance between blank walls and habitable rooms to avoid an oppressive feeling.

I accept that removal of the garage would move built development further away from some of the rear windows of the existing bungalow. However, the proposed bungalow would extend almost half way along the new garden boundary and be a visible built form in close proximity to occupiers of No.14.

From my site observations, a new garden boundary of some sort would also need to be erected across the garden to create a separate rear garden for the new dwelling. To be effective at providing privacy and screening, a boundary screen would need to be at least 1.5 metres high. The gable end of the bungalow would be taller than this.

The close proximity of the physical built form of a new dwelling, a new garden area and a garden boundary would reduce the quality of the amenity that occupiers of No.14 currently enjoy and would create an unneighbourly, intrusive, and oppressive outlook for existing occupiers. As such, I find there would be harm to the living conditions of occupiers of No.14 with regard to outlook. Even if the appellant does not mind, planning permission runs with the land so future occupiers of No.14 would be adversely affected.

Accordingly, the proposal would be contrary to Core Strategy Policy ENV3, [name] D1, D7 and D8 and TNP Policy TNP12 [name]. Together these seek, inter alia, to ensure development respects its context, taking into account domestic gardens, including their proportions, and development does not adversely affect people’s amenities in respect of, amongst other things, outlook. It would also be contrary to guidance in the [name] that encourages good standards of space and outlook.

In its [name] the Council encourages a minimum garden length of 11 metres for family dwellings. It also shows at fig 20 an example to illustrate the minimum size garden that would be considered appropriate for a small family house, namely 11 metres long x 5 metres wide.

The subdivision of the appeal plot would leave the existing dwelling with a reduced rear garden, which from looking at the plans and my observations on site would be less than half of its existing size. It would be the width of the house, which by comparing dimensions on the plans would be more than 10 metres and about 8.2 metres deep and rectangular in size. The existing dwelling would also retain its large open front garden.

The outside private rear garden for the proposed dwelling would be the width of the house, a little more than 10.25 metres, and about [address] in shape.

Looking at the dimensions involved, it is unclear whether the amounts of amenity area annotated on the plans also include the amenity areas to the front for each dwelling. They appear larger than the amenity area stated in the appellant’s Design and [name].

That said, both the proposed and remaining rear gardens would exceed the total area of the illustrative SPG garden example, even though they would fall below the 11 metre length. I understand the appellant expressed willingness to move the dwelling forward to create a longer garden. However, no such alternative is before me for consideration.

Nonetheless, neither property would have habitable windows facing each other and both dwellings are single storey, so there would be no issues of loss of privacy. Both properties would have useable shaped private rear garden areas that would exceed the total area of the illustrated example in the [name], even if not 11 metres in length and of a slightly different shape and orientation to the SPG example. Therefore, in themselves, I find the rear garden areas would be within acceptable limits to provide adequate outdoor amenity space, such that the proposal would not harm the living conditions of existing occupiers of the host dwelling, or future occupiers of the proposed dwelling.

Accordingly, there would be no conflict with the relevant elements of Core Strategy Policy ENV3, [name] D1, D7 and D8 and the TNP. It would also broadly comply with the guidance in the [name].

There is currently a tarmac driveway and dropped kerb in front of the existing (former) garage and the appellant could park cars here any time, although there were none parked during my visit. However, the garage would be demolished and the plans show the driveway would be replaced by grass. A new driveway would be created further along in front of the new dwelling. From my site visit observations, the relocation of the driveway parking would not amount to a significant change to the existing parking location and provision on this stretch of [address].

The existing dwelling would also need its own parking provision. The existing paved path leading to the front door of No.14 would be widened to become driveway parking to allow side-by-side parking. There is no highway objection on technical highway grounds with regards the amount of parking to be provided or any highway safety issues regarding its location.

I saw that other properties in [address] have integral garaging and large driveways. Some occupiers have hardsurfaced over the entire front garden for driveway parking leaving no landscaping and with the potential this has for considerable parking provision and the street scene. Due to the orientation of the existing and proposed dwellings in relation to each other and the bend in [address], the two separate areas of parking would not be viewed side by side on the same stretch of road. Whilst the new parking would be visible on the approach into [address], landscaped grassed areas would remain either side of the new driveway to soften its appearance, which is not the case with all nearby driveway parking. On balance, I am satisfied the proposal would not result in a parking-dominated frontage to the street scene, even close to the corner with [address].

Accordingly, the proposal would comply with the relevant elements of Core Strategy Policy ENV3, [name] D1, D7 and D8 and the TNP. It would also comply with the guidance in the [name].

The appellant draws my attention to a planning application1 that was approved for a large extension to the existing property (the ‘approved extension’). This would extend the side elevation along [address] close up to the boundary with No.12 and build on part of the garden that forms the gap between No.14 and No.12. It is not clear if the approved extension is still an extant permission, but even if it is, an extension to an existing property is a very different scenario to a new dwelling on part of the rear garden. Whilst the approved extension would reduce the amount of outdoor amenity space available for occupiers of No.14, some of which would be hard surfaced, it would nonetheless remain as garden space for that household, and would not be subdivided for another planning unit. Therefore, the approved extension is not a comparable example and does not set a precedent to justify the erection of a dwelling in the rear garden of No.14.

The appellant also refers me to a number of other examples2 in the vicinity where gardens of new dwellings are less than 11 metres long or where extensions to existing properties would reduce the garden size, and the appellant has provided various built form ratio calculations for comparison.

I was also directed to look at [address] as an example of a new dwelling that has been built in the garden of an existing corner bungalow (No.44). I saw [address] was a much longer street than [address] and had a denser character and appearance. I also saw that the new dwelling had been built in the side garden of No.44, not to the rear as is the case with the appeal proposal, and would therefore not have presented the same outlook issues.

I find the examples serve to demonstrate that variations exist, depending on site specific and the particular circumstances of each case, details of which I do not have to all of the examples. However, none are directly comparable to the appeal proposal before me, which in any event I must determine on its own individual merits, particular circumstances and site specifics.

The appellant proposes a number of sustainability measures during construction and for the lifetime of the dwelling, such as maximum energy efficiency measures, solar panels, solar gain, water conservation, using local labour and locally produced products to minimise transportation, pursuing ethical procurement policies, and minimising pollution during the construction process. Laudable as these are, they do not outweigh my findings of harm.

Drawing all the above points together, the parking for the proposal and existing dwelling would not have a materially harmful effect upon the character and appearance of the area and the private amenity space for the existing and proposed dwellings would be within acceptable limits. However, these aspects do not outweigh the harm that the new dwelling would cause to the character and 1 LPA ref: 21/01575/FUL 2 [address], [address], 26 Woodcote and [address]. appearance of the area and to the living conditions of existing occupiers. Therefore, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.