Appeal 6001164

The appeal is dismissed.

The description provided on the application form includes a significant amount of detail. [name] have taken this information into account, I have adopted a shortened version of the description, as set out above, taken from the decision notice.

There is a discrepancy between the drawings submitted. Drawing no. 0-PROP-E4- 05 rev. A ([name]) shows the projection of the front porch greater than that shown on drawing no. 0-PROP-E3-04 rev. A ([name]). The latter matches the size of the porch shown on drawing no. 0-PROP-L0-1 rev. A (Proposed Ground Floor Plan), and I have therefore determined the appeal on the basis of the size of the porch shown on those drawings.

Reference has been made to policies in the emerging Dudley Local Plan, 2024, which is currently at Examination. The emerging policies relevant to this appeal are broadly consistent with equivalent current policies in the Dudley Borough Development Strategy, 2017. Due to this, and to the emerging Plan’s relatively advanced stage, I give them weight as a material consideration.

The main issues are: • The effect of the development on the character and appearance of the appeal site and the surrounding area; and • The effect of the proposed rear extension on the living conditions of the occupants of the neighbouring [address].

The appeal property is a two storey, brick built semi-detached house, with a hipped roof and centrally placed porch canopy. The pair of houses occupy a corner plot at the junction of Valley Road and [name], set at 45 degrees to the heavily splayed junction. Twenty Valley Road (No. 20) has gardens to the front and side, and like its partner ([address] (No. 18)) has a tapering, triangular garden of modest size to the rear.

Similar pairs of semi-detached houses occupy the three other corners at the crossing of Valley Road and [name], facing each other at some distance across a wide diamond of tarmacked roadway. Valley Road slopes downwards from west to east, with Nos. 18 and 20 occupying one of the upper quadrants at the road junction.

The surrounding area has an established residential character; originally a municipal housing estate it has a unified appearance, comprising red brick semi-detached houses, with pitched roofs, set behind front gardens. They are regularly spaced, and at my site visit I observed that the vast majority retain their porch canopies to their front elevations. A limited number of different house types add a degree of variety, as does the changing topography of the sloping site and numerous mature trees to front gardens.

The proposed development includes a single storey, flat-roofed porch to the front elevation. The front of the enclose porch would be extensively glazed. It would replace the centrally placed porch canopy and extend some distance to one side across the front elevation.

The proposed two storey side extension would have the same hipped roof form and eaves height of the host dwelling. It would be set back from the front and rear building lines and have a ridge line slightly below that of No. 20. The width of the side extension would be approximately half that of the main house, and it would have a large, horizontal window to the ground floor at the front, in contrast to the smaller, vertically orientated windows elsewhere in the surrounding area.

The proposed single storey, flat roofed rear extension would occupy the full width of the host building, with one side wall being on the shared boundary with No. 18. It would be around 4m deep and have extensive glazing to the garden elevation.

Due to its width, form and extensive glazing, the proposed front porch would be completely out of character with the host building and any development in the surrounding area. The porch would be a bulky and discordant addition which would be visible in views from the east looking up Valley Road; particularly given the extensive open area to the front of the appeal site, at the splayed road junction, and its slightly elevated position due to the sloping topography.

Whilst a small number of properties in the surrounding area now have enclosed front porches or have extended the small porch canopy roofs across adjoining windows, none are of the form or scale proposed. The porch would be harmful to the character and appearance of the appeal site and the surrounding area.

Although the side extension would largely follow the form and materials of the host dwelling, it would impinge on the open nature of the corner plot. It would also project beyond the established front building line of the properties in the adjacent [name] and be visible in views from the south. Although the ridge line of its roof would be below that of the host building, due to its width it would be a prominent addition. The size and horizontal orientation of the ground floor window would add to its incongruity. Its slightly elevated position, relative to the road, would also add to its prominence. The side extension would, therefore, be harmful to the character and appearance of the appeal site and the surrounding area.

By virtue of its scale and form, the rear extension would dominate the rear elevation of the building, particularly given the modest size and tapering aspect to the rear garden. The fenestration pattern would accentuate the incongruous nature of the development. Although views were restricted, at my site visit I did not observe any other rear extensions in the immediate vicinity, with the character of the spaces to the rear of the houses remaining intact. The rear extension would, therefore, be harmful to the character and appearance of the appeal site and the surrounding area.

The proposals do not accord with advice in Dudley Council’s Residential Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document, 2023 (the SPD), which seeks to ensure that house extensions do not have a negative impact on the street scene, relate to the design of the original house, and do not appear as obvious additions.

The development is contrary to Policies DLP14 and DLP39 of the emerging Dudley Local Plan, 2024, (the Emerging Local Plan). Taken together these seek to deliver high quality development that is of an appropriate form, scale, and mass, and does not have a detrimental impact on the character, and design of the host dwelling.

For the reasons given above, the development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the appeal site and the surrounding area. It is contrary to Policy ENV3 of the Black Country Core Strategy, 2011 (the [name]), which seeks to deliver high quality design. It is also contrary to Policies S6 and L1 of the Dudley Borough Development Strategy, 2017 (the Development Strategy), which taken together seek to deliver high quality development which respects and is responsive to the character of the surrounding area.

Both parties agree that the proposed front and side extensions would be acceptable regarding their impact on the living conditions of neighbouring occupants. The Council has raised no issues with overlooking and privacy resulting from the proposed rear extension, but is of the view that it would result in harm to the living conditions of the occupants of No. 18: specifically in relation to the unacceptable loss of light to a ground floor habitable room, and due to its overbearing impact.

The proposed single storey, flat roofed rear extension would occupy the full width of the host building, and project around 4m from the rear of the building along the shared boundary with No. 18. There is a habitable room to the ground floor of No. 18 adjacent to the shared boundary, which has a glazed doorway giving access to the rear amenity space and providing light to the room.

The shared rear elevation of Nos. 18 and 20 faces south-west. The glazed door therefore provides a southerly aspect for the habitable room. Due to the orientation of the development, views to the south from the door would be largely obscured by the proposed rear extension, and there would be a harmful impact on outlook and a degree of overshadowing.

There would be a significant breach of the 45 degree code, on plan, advocated in the SPD for the ground floor door, indicating an unacceptable loss of natural light to the rear of the room. It would also appear overbearing in its impact on outlook from the glazed door of the building, and such harm would not be mitigated by the existence of a second, north-east facing window to the front elevation. The side wall of the rear extension would appear similarly overbearing from the outdoor amenity space immediately to the rear of No. 18.

It has been put to me that the proposed rear extension is not contrary to advice relating to natural light in BRE 209 when considered on elevation. Whilst that may be so, it does not address advice in the SPD relating to provision of natural light and the impact on living conditions of the occupants of No. 18. Therefore, the proposals do not accord with advice in the SPD with regards to impacts on natural light and outlook.

The development is contrary to Policy DLP14 of the Emerging Local Plan which seeks to ensure that development would not cause unacceptable harm to the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings, including harm arising from loss of outlook, and sunlight.

For the reasons given above, the proposed rear extension would cause unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupants of the neighbouring [address]. It is contrary to Policy L1 of the Development Strategy, which seeks to ensure that development would not cause unacceptable harm to the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings, including harm arising from loss of outlook and sunlight, taking into account factors such as orientation and separation of development.

My attention has been drawn to a similar side extension permitted at [address] (No. 59): one half of the pair of semi-detached properties diagonally opposite Nos. 18 and 20. That extension does not appear to be as wide as the one proposed at No. 20 and it has windows that more closely match that of its host dwelling. Its prominence, in the street scene, is lessened by the fall across the site and the mature tree to the front garden of No. 59.

My attention has also been drawn to the side extension at [address]. It is smaller than that of the appeal proposal and well set back from the front of the host dwelling, so is of limited use as a comparator. I have come to a decision based on the facts of the case and these comparisons do not lead me to an alternative conclusion.

The appellant suggests that the development reflects the evolving character of the neighbourhood and the need to provide improved standards of living conditions in line with current expectations around space, quality, and functionality. In coming to a decision, I have assessed the character and appearance of the neighbourhood based on the evidence submitted and my observations at the site visit. Whilst the benefits of improvements to the existing housing stock weigh in favour of the development, this does not justify the permanent harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the area, nor to the living conditions of neighbouring occupants, that I have identified.

The appellant has raised concerns about the reporting of third party comments in the Council officer’s planning report. This is not a matter for my deliberation in the context of a planning appeal, and it has not been determinative to the appeal.

For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole and having regard to all other matters, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.