Appeal 6001455

The appeal is dismissed.

In their Statement of Case the appellant has indicated that they wish to remove the installation of the front brickwork wall and gates with associated works from the development. Alterations to the main house and the installation of the front wall and gates are independent of each other and can be considered separately.

Removing the front entrance wall and gates from the proposal at appeal stage would not prejudice any party. Having considered the contents of the Procedural Guide for Planning Appeals, I have determined the appeal on the basis that the installation of front brickwork and gates with associated works do not form part of the proposed development. For the avoidance of doubt, I have amended the above description of development, omitting refence to those works. As the dispute between the parties, set out in the Council’s second reason for refusal, related solely to the highway safety implications of those removed works, I am satisfied that the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact on highway safety and there would be no conflict with Policy P8 of the Solihull Local Plan (2013) (SLP).

The main issue is the effect of the proposed two-storey side extension on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

The appeal site is on the north side of [address], which is characterised by detached properties of a similar scale and on a comparable building line. There is a degree of variety in plot widths, although those closest to the appeal site are more generous. The majority of dwellings are set slightly in from the shared boundaries with neighbouring properties. Although closely spaced, properties appear as separate dwellings, due also in part to a variety of architectural treatment, materials, and stepped roof forms. In the few instances where dwellings have been extended up to the shared side boundary, those extensions are generally of a single storey, and sometimes set back from the front elevation of each house, leaving a visual gap between dwellings.

The appeal site is a two-storey detached property, set back some distance from [address]. To the east it has an attached single-storey double garage extending to the shared boundary with [address] (No 113). No 113 is a detached house of a similar scale to the appeal property, [address] (No 111). Its building line is approximately 2m further back than the appeal property and it has a single storey side extension up to the shared boundary with No 111.

The proposed development includes the demolition of the single-storey double garage, and its replacement with a two-storey side extension up to the shared boundary with No 113. The extension would have a hipped roof to the side. To the front the proposed extension would align with the front façade of the main house; to the rear it would extend beyond the back wall of the main house, and have a total depth of over 13m.

The proposed two storey development would not be set in from the shared boundary with No 113, nor would it step down or back from the front elevation of the host dwelling. In this regard, it would be atypical of development along this stretch of the street and would not be responsive to local character.

The set back building line of No 113, and its lower scale to the shared boundary with No 111, provides a degree of visual separation between the two properties. However, the visual gap would be diminished due to the extent of the flank wall of the proposed two-storey side extension, which would be visible in oblique views from [address] from the east, causing visual coalescence between the two properties. The lack of a physical, or adequate visual, separation between Nos 111 and 113 would be at odds with the prevailing character described above.

The passage through the proposed extension, to the right hand side of the front elevation, would not provide an adequate degree of visual permeability, or separation, adjacent to the shared boundary as suggested by the appellant. Due to its limited width, allied to its considerable length, it would only be visible as a gap in the built form from a very limited number of viewpoints, immediately to the front of the opening.

[address] Extensions Guidelines Supplementary Planning Document, (the SPD) 2010, highlights the importance of gaps between properties at shared boundaries, when considering two-storey extensions; so that detached homes do not appear terraced, cramped or unreasonably ‘squeezed’ into the plot. It also advises on the need to consider the likelihood of the gap to the boundary of the adjacent dwelling being filled, and whether there is sufficient space to prevent terracing.

The proposed two-storey side extension would not include the characteristic, albeit small, gap between the shared boundary, which would prevent the development appearing cramped, and would avoid a potential terracing effect of the appeal site with No 113. The proposed development would, therefore, be contrary to advice in the SPD. This reinforces my above assessment.

For the reasons set out above the proposed two-storey side extension would harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area. It would, therefore, conflict with Policy P15 of the SLP which seeks to ensure that all development is well designed and conserves and enhances local character, distinctiveness, and streetscape quality. It would also be contrary to advice in the SPD.

Evidence has been submitted referring to other development in the surrounding area. I have taken this into account in terms of any influence on the character and appearance of the area as far as I am able to; based on the information provided. However, I am not aware of the full circumstances of those other cases and in any event each scheme must be considered and determined on its individual merits.

My attention has been drawn to the Council’s handling of the case during the planning application process. However, these are not matters for my deliberation in the context of a planning appeal. I also note that there would be no impact on the living conditions of neighbouring occupants, however this does not weigh in favour of the development; and for the reasons outlined above, the extension would cause the identified harm and would give rise to the associated conflict with

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.