Appeal 6001229

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for single storey wraparound extension, second story side extension and internal remodelling at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref P25/0867, subject to the following conditions:

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 Location Plan and Site Plan, and with drawing numbers: 2 of 3 and 3 of 3.

No tree felling or pruning associated with the development hereby permitted shall be carried out until a detailed felling or pruning specification has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning authority. All tree felling and pruning shall be carried out in full accordance with the approved specifications and the requirements of [name] 3998 (2010) Recommendations for Tree Work.

All excavations to be undertaken within the Root Protection Area (as defined by Clause 4.6 of [name]:5837 – 2012 ‘Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction– Recommendations’) of any existing trees on site shall be undertaken in accordance with [name] for the Planning, Installation and Maintenance of [name] in Proximity to Trees ([name] 4).

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on: • The character and appearance of the host dwelling, and surrounding area; • The living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with particular regard to outlook and natural light; and, • Highway safety as a result of parking provision.

The appeal site comprises a corner plot at the junction between elements of [address] that collectively form a T-shape. [address] is relatively level to the front of the site, the road rises up along the side of the site. The site contains a detached two-storey dwelling that is set within a cutting below the raised portion of the road. The site’s side boundary fence follows the rise in the land. It was clear during my site visit that [address] has been built in at least two phases with the dwellings up to the rear of the appeal site being part of an earlier development. Given the varied design and arrangement of the dwellings surrounding the appeal site there is very little sense of uniformity or visual rhythm immediately surrounding the site.

The proposed changes would, in their design and scale, be domestic in character. Moreover, as a result of the change in land levels to the side of the house, the wraparound extension would not be a dominant feature detrimental to the openness of the junction. The first-floor extension would also be softened in views from the front as a result of its setback and the garage roof.

As there is no regular pattern of development immediately surrounding the host dwelling, the erosion of the gap between it and No [address] would not be detrimental to the appreciation of the pattern of development. Similarly, the glimpses, between the properties, of trees to the rear are not so important within the street scene that the reduction likely from the proposal would be unacceptable.

I am mindful that the host dwelling and its neighbour at No 16 are very similar in their appearance, form and positioning. However, this similarity does not make an important contribution to the character or appearance of [address]. As such, while the proposal would result in the loss of this similarity, it would not be unacceptable.

The proposal, by way of its scale, design and prominence, would not harm the character and appearance of the host building or the surrounding area. The proposal therefore complies with Policies ENV2 and ENV3 of the Black Country Core Strategy (the BCCS) and Policies S6, S8 and L1 of the Dudley Borough Development Strategy (the DBDS). These policies collectively, and amongst other matters, require proposals to be of a high quality design that responds to, respects and protects the local character and distinctiveness. Particular emphasis is put on form, siting, scale, mass and materials by these policies. The proposal also complies with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), including Paragraph 135 which requires developments be sympathetic to the locl character and built environment. It also complies with the guidance set out within section 3 of the Dudley Council Residential Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (the RDG).

The single-storey garage connected to the host dwelling forms part of the shared boundary with No [address]. The garage extends beyond the rear elevation of No 16. During my site visit I was able to see the rear of No 16 and the rear facing windows on the ground and first floors. I noted patio doors on the ground floor and a window on the first floor that were close enough to the boundary that the proposal may affect their outlook and access to light.

Both the ground and first floor windows appeared to have an open outlook forward across the garden and to the side away from the appeal site. They are also orientated in a southern facing and so are likely to receive a good level of natural daylight throughout the day.

It appears that the proposed first-floor extension would result in a breach of the 45 ̊ test set out by the Council when considered against the patio doors. However, given this window is served by a good outlook and level of light, I find it unlikely that there would be any significant or unacceptable impact on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers using that room. Although the first-floor window is closer to the proposal, it is in an elevated position against the extension. Moreover, the roof of the proposal would slope away from the window. Given this, and that the window is again served by a good outlook and level of light, I similarly find that there would be no unacceptable impact to the room served by this window. Therefore, while it does not comply with the guidance set out in the RDG, it nevertheless would also not result in any unacceptable impact to the living conditions of those living at [address].

The first-floor element of the proposed extensions would not result in any unacceptable level of harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with regard to outlook and natural light. The proposal therefore complies with DBDS Policy L1 which supports extensions where there would be no unacceptable harm to the amenities of neighbouring occupiers with particular regard to outlook and sunlight.

The host dwelling is served by parking spaces to the front of the site and a garage. Given the scale of the garage, it does not meet the requirements set out by the Council’s Parking Standards Supplementary Planning Document (the SPD). Consequently, I have not counted the garage towards the overall parking provision at the site. At the time of my visit, which can only provide a snapshot in time, there were few vehicles parked on-street to the side of the appeal site. Moreover, houses along this element of [address] were largely provided with off-street parking.

[name] have not been provided with a parking layout to demonstrate that the site could accommodate three vehicles, I have been provided with a photo showing three cars parked to the front of the appeal site. It appears that the car to the right of the photo sits partially on the grass adjacent to the parking area and would need to drive over this grass to reach the road. Therefore, and lacking any evidence to the contrary, I find that the appeal site currently provides two parking spaces.

The host dwelling currently has four bedrooms increasing to five under the proposal. The SPD requires that dwellings with four or five bedrooms provide three parking spaces. As the appeal site can only accommodate two appropriate parking spaces the dwelling has an existing under provision of parking. However, as the proposal would remain within the same bedroom band it would not exacerbate the existing under provision defined by the SPD. Even if the proposal were to increase parking demand at the site up to three vehicles, I am content that this could be safely accommodated by the road to the side of the site.

The proposal would not result in any unacceptable harm to highway safety as a result of an under provision in off-street parking. The proposal therefore complies with DBDS Policy L1 which requires proposals to provide adequate parking without any detrimental impact to highway safety. The proposal also complies with the guidance set out under the SPD with regard to the provision of parking spaces.

I have had regard to the conditions suggested by the Council and the advice on planning conditions set out by the Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance. In the interests of clarity and enforceability, I have made some changes to the wording.

For certainty, I have set out the timescale for the commencement of development. A condition is also necessary, for certainty and enforceability, requiring that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans.

Given the presence of mature trees and a tree preservation order, it is necessary that conditions are imposed to protect them. However, as no works to trees are proposed, I have reworded this condition to make it less onerous. Moreover, as no plans showing trees have been submitted it would not be possible to comply with a condition requiring those trees to be retained. I have therefore not imposed this

There are no material considerations that indicate the appeal should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan. For the reasons given above, I therefore conclude that the appeal should be allowed.