Appeal 6001420

The appeal is dismissed.

Reference to “retrospective” has been omitted from the description of development above as it is not a form of development. However, the application form confirms that the development has been completed, and I was able to see this during my site visit. I have determined the appeal on that basis.

Policies in the emerging Dudley Local Plan, published 2024, which is currently at Examination stage, have been cited in the decision notice. The emerging policies relevant to this appeal are broadly consistent with equivalent policies in the Dudley Borough Development Strategy, 2017. However, as the emerging Local Plan has not yet been adopted, I afford its policies only limited weight.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the appeal site and the surrounding area.

The appeal site is a detached brick-built bungalow with a pitched roof, on a corner plot at the junction of Celandine and [name]. Its gable elevation faces [site address] with an open outdoor area to the corner, towards the road junction. It has a similar design and building line with two other bungalows immediately to the south on [site address] .

The site is in an established suburban residential area, comprising a mixture of one and two storey houses, both detached and semi-detached, with pitched roofs. The predominant facing material is brick, with occasional rendered panels. Houses are set back from the road, with gardens or driveways to the front. Although there is a variety of dwelling types, the consistency of building materials and front open areas give a consistent and spacious appearance to the surrounding area.

The development is a single storey, open-sided carport with the end gable facing [site address] . It has a double pitched roof which matches but is slightly set down from that of the main house. The end gable of the carport is of an open, structural timber frame, with open timber laths infilling the upper level of the gable.

The development, by reason of its projection forward of the principal gable end, harmfully breaks the established and consistent building line of residential properties along [site address] , particularly with those buildings to the south of the appeal site. Its incongruous position, and nature, is reinforced by the appeal site’s corner location, with it being highly prominent in views along [site address] from both north and south. This is the case irrespective of the development’s setback from the site boundaries and set down from adjacent highways.

Whilst its roof form and treatment are broadly consistent with the main house, the open-sided structural timber frame and timber infill is at odds with the materials of the host dwelling and buildings in the surrounding area. It is an obvious and discordant addition and, although subservient in scale, its materials are not well related to that of the host building, the street scene, nor to the surrounding area. Due to both its prominent position within the site and materials, the development is harmful to the character and appearance of the appeal site and the surrounding area.

The appellant argues that the carport is positioned on a side elevation, rather than front elevation, of the property, noting the front door faces [address], not [site address] . Whatever the orientation of the property, the development is highly visible from both [address] and [site address] .

The development does not accord with advice in Dudley Council’s Residential Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document, 2023, which seeks to ensure that 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.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the development is harmful to the character and appearance of the appeal site and the surrounding area. It is, therefore, contrary to Policies ENV2 and ENV3 of the Black Country Core Strategy, 2011, and Policies S6, S8 and L1 of the Dudley Borough Development Strategy. These policies, taken together, seek to deliver high quality development which respects and is responsive to the character of the surrounding area. This is in a similar vein to Policies DLP4, DLP14, DLP39 and DLP55 of the emerging Local Plan.

My attention has been drawn to a number of other developments in the vicinity, although I have not been provided with full details of each example. Those for residential extensions and alterations appear to be broadly in keeping with the materials and suburban character of the area. Moreover, they are on different sites and appear to relate to different types of development. Consequently, they are not directly comparable to the scheme before me. In any case, the existence of development elsewhere does not justify the harm I have found. I have come to a decision based on the individual circumstances of the case and these comparisons do not lead me to an alternative conclusion.

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.