Appeal 6003173

The appeal is dismissed insofar as it relates to the single storey side extension and front porch with associated canopies.

The appeal is allowed insofar as it relates to the boundary treatment. Planning permission is granted for the front and rear boundary walls at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/2025/0742 and the plans submitted with it, so far as they are relevant to that part of the development hereby permitted and 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 drawing no’s A04 and A11 with regard to the front and rear boundary walls only.

The materials of the boundary walls hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling.

The application form description of development references a previously approved scheme. The decision notice description made clear that the operational development for which planning consent was sought comprised a single storey side extension, front porch and boundary treatment. I observed on my site visit that a porch, side extension and boundary walls have been constructed. Although these have some similarities to the development indicated on the proposed plans, there are differences relating to size and design in all respects. I have dealt with the appeal based on the submitted proposed plans and the description as set out in the banner heading above.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area.

[address] is a residential street formed by a curving highway with junctions to [address] at two separate points. Dwellings on [address] were clearly constructed as part of a single development up to its junction with [address]. Semi-detached and terraced properties demonstrate a simple form with symmetry in both arrangement and detail. Hipped pitched roof structures are a consistent form with larger properties displaying dual hipped pitches to the front and side roof elevations.

The majority of these properties are largely retained in their original form and appearance, with only minimal changes. As such, this part of [address] displays a distinct character with similar scale, style and symmetrical detailing forming attractive visual focal points within the street scene.

The appeal property is the right-hand of a pair of semi-detached dwellings positioned at a distinct curve in the road and therefore of greater visual prominence in the longer-range as well as near street scene. The dwelling already has a two-storey side extension, single storey rear extension and altered finishes, diverging from the symmetry of this pairing. The appeal relates to three elements of development, a single storey side extension with pitched roof, front porch with associated canopies and boundary treatment to the front and rear of the site.

The single storey side extension features a pitched roof with a ridgeline at the eaves of the existing dwelling. It comprises a garage accessed from the rear of the property and is sited almost flush with the rear elevation of the dwelling. The rear of the dwelling, including the garage, is highly visible within the street scene of [address], to the rear of [address]. The side gable elevation of the pitched roof garage is prominent and noticeably discordant set against the context of consistent hipped rooves along the rear of the [address] dwellings.

The front porch features a central covered area with lean-to roof supported by three thin pillars atop a low-level brick wall, extended by two free hanging similar lean-to rooves across the full frontage of the dwelling with connecting returns. The porch with canopies is highly visible on the front elevation of the extended building, creating a horizontal emphasis unique to this dwelling within the surrounding context. The previously approved two-storey side extension went some degree towards undermining the symmetry of this pair of dwellings, however the domination of the front elevation with a new and discordant building form is not justified at this prominent position within the [address] street scene.

The single storey side extension and front porch with associated canopies would harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. As such, they both conflict with Policies BE1 and BE2 of the Telford and Wrekin Local Plan 2011-2031 (the Local Plan) which seek to secure a high standard of design reflecting and respecting the existing building and local character in terms of size and design. As a result of conflict with Policies BE1 and BE2, these elements of the scheme also conflict with Policies SP1 and SP4 of the Local Plan.

The current front boundary treatment comprises a red brick wall with concave curving detail between pillars. Gates provide pedestrian access. The rear boundary extends along [address] and comprises a solid red brick wall with vehicular gates. The proposed plans show similar design and materials with a reduced height to the front boundary.

There is no predominant form of boundary treatment within the vicinity of the site with a mix of vegetation, timber fencing and open boundaries on both [address] and [address]. Three other semi-detached dwellings on [address] feature red brick walls topped with railings in-between pillars. The conjoining dwelling features black painted timber fencing and established hedging.

The boundary would be reflective of the scale of enclosure evidenced at the conjoining dwelling. Given that there is no predominant form of boundary, or design connection to the dwellings themselves, the proposed brick boundary walls would not give rise to unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling or the surrounding area. Accordingly, the development accords with Policies BE1 and BE2 of the Local Plan which, as above, seek to secure a high standard of design reflecting and respecting the existing building and local character. Given that this part of the scheme complies with Policies BE1 and BE2, it follows that it is also in accordance with Policies SP1 and SP4 of the Local Plan.

For the reasons set out above, the appeal is dismissed in relation to the single-storey side extension and front porch with associated canopies. However, the boundary walls are clearly severable from the other development, being both physically and functionally independent. Therefore, in this case, under section 79(1)(b) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, I am able to issue a split decision and grant planning permission for the boundary walls as set out on the proposed plans (drawing no’s A04 and A11).

As part of the grant of planning permission, legislation requires the imposition of a condition specifying the period for commencement of the development. In addition, conditions are necessary to identify the relevant drawings to provide certainty, and for materials to match those used on the existing house to maintain the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

For the reasons given above, the appeal should be allowed in part and dismissed in part.