Appeal 6003765

The appeal is dismissed.

The development was completed prior to the application to the Council. The main issues are the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the building and area, and the effect on the living conditions of neighbours at [address] in respect of outlook.

Number [site address] is a detached dormer bungalow located within a residential area. The property has a garage which is located next to the boundary with [address]. A mono pitched roof has been added to the original garage roof, with solar panels to provide power generation. Dwellings at this side of [address] have generous rear gardens. Land beyond the gardens has permission for new residential development.

Although the garage roof has been raised in height and consequently in bulk, it is not visible when viewed from [address], opposite the front elevation of the appeal property. It therefore does not compete visually with the height or form of the main bungalow roof at its front elevation and does not cause any harm to the street scene.

Neighbouring dwellings have a variety of extensions and outbuildings in their rear gardens. However, the form of development at the appeal site is unusual and will be prominent in views from the facing windows and rear gardens of neighbouring houses. That is because of its height, steeply sloping mono-pitch roof design, and pale coloured cladding. Whilst the type of cladding occurs in residential areas, its height scale, and extent results in it having a significant adverse visual impact. I find that the development has a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the original garage building. It also results in visual harm for neighbours in the area, surrounding the rear garden of the appeal property, who can overlook the garage building.

The garage roof can be seen from the nearest first floor bedroom window at the neighbouring property of [address]. That property has a ground floor extension with windows overlooking its rear garden. The garage roof may be seen from the rear garden of [address], but it has no adverse visual impact when viewed from the windows in that ground floor rear extension. The Council has advised that the development has caused a significant breach of the 45-degree code in relation to the first floor bedroom window of [address], although the delegated report also has a contradictory statement. I consider, from my site inspection, that the development has resulted in harm to the living conditions of the neighbours at [address] from the adverse effect on the outlook from their first floor bedroom window as a result of the proximity and height of the raised garage roof.

The tallest point of the garage building roof, at around 4.3 metres, is set back for a distance greater than 2 metres from the boundary with [address]. The appellant has submitted that there would be a fall-back position whereby a structure with a maximum height of 4 metres could be built in the same position under permitted development rights. However, the appellant has not proposed any amendments to alter the roof height, and given that the development is already completed, and not proposed, there is no realistic prospect of a compliant permitted development proposal being built as a fall-back position.

I find that the development fails to comply with policies CSP4 and ENV3 of the Black Country Core Strategy, policy ENV32 of the Walsall Unitary Development Plan, [name] of the Designing Walsall Supplementary Planning Document, and the objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which seek, amongst other things, to ensure good design and to protect residential amenity.

I acknowledge that the development facilitates a sustainable form of energy production in accordance with aspects of saved policy GP2 and the Framework. However, that benefit in this specific case, and its particular circumstances, is outweighed by the harm to the character and appearance of the garage building and area, and harm to the living conditions of neighbours from the raised roof over the garage, that I have identified above.

I conclude that the development fails to comply with the development plan as a whole and, on balance, should be dismissed.