Appeal 6001757

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single storey orangery at [site address] , [name], [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/25/70870, and the plans submitted with it.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The description of development above is taken from the application form, removing wording that is not an act of development. During my site visit, I observed a development which appeared the same as that which has been applied for. As such I have determined the appeal on the basis that planning permission is sought to retain the development that has taken place.

The main issues are the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area; and on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address], having particular reference to daylight/sunlight and outlook.

The appeal dwelling forms half of a semi-detached pair of houses. The dwelling is traditional in appearance, sharing a pitched roof with its attached neighbour and a central shared chimney stack. Several properties in the surrounding area have been extended to the rear with varying materials and sizes and styles of extensions. As such the prevailing character and appearance of the rear of the properties along [address] is mixed.

Despite the appeal scheme being deeper than other rear extensions nearby, the introduction of an orangery style extension at the appeal site adds to the variety at the rear of [address] and assimilates well with this characteristic of the surrounding area. The generous rear garden at the appeal site can readily accommodate the development and so it does not appear cramped or overdeveloped. It therefore does not read as being disproportionate to the host dwelling but rather as a fluid evolution of the surrounding housing typology.

Consequently, the development reflects the guidance in the [name] Planning Document (2014) (SPD) that extensions should be proportionate to the existing dwelling and avoid being out of keeping with their surroundings. As the development is complete it is not necessary to impose any conditions.

Overall, I conclude that the development does not have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. It therefore accords with Policy ENV3 of the Black Country Core Strategy (2011) and Policy EOS9 of the Site Allocations and Delivery Development Plan Document (2012) (DPD) insofar as they require development to understand and respond to the identity of place, with high-quality design proposals that are compatible with their surroundings and locality.

The appeal dwelling is situated to the north of No 97. Therefore, the development does not interfere with the natural path of the sun, and owing to its modest single storey height does not unreasonably diminish the level of daylight/sunlight reaching the garden area and rear facing windows at No 97, which are reasonably sized.

Owing to the wide and deep plot, the occupiers of No 97 have a generous outlook with clear visibility of the sky from their rear facing windows and in the garden. While the development is visible above the boundary treatment and results in a visual change, it does not unreasonably narrow the outlook and the spacious aspect from No 97 is retained. As such, the development does not unduly impact on neighbouring properties in line with the advice in the SPD.

To conclude, the development does not have a harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 97, having particular reference to outlook and daylight/sunlight. It therefore accords with Policy EOS9 of the DPD which amongst other things, requires development to be compatible with their surroundings.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be allowed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed.