Appeal 6004139

The appeal is dismissed.

I have taken the description of the development in the banner heading above from the Council’s decision notice as this gives a more accurate description of the development proposed.

I note that the Council in their Officer report state that the proposed single storey side extension and single storey rear extensions would not result in harm to the existing dwelling or surrounding area. I have no reason to disagree with the opinion of the Council in this matter. Taking this into account, the only outstanding matter in dispute is with regards to the proposed hip to gable roof extension and rear dormer.

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

The appeal site relates to a semi-detached house on the corner at the junction of [address] and [address]. [address] mainly comprises 2-storey semi-detached houses with hipped roofs and attached garages to the side.

The Council’s Residential Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2023) (SPD) advises that dormers will only be permitted in very exceptional circumstances where they are in keeping with the architectural style of the property and set back from the eaves by a minimum of 1m. Appeal Decision: 6004139

The proposal is to extend the roof to the side, replacing the hipped roof with a gable end, and adding a flat roofed dormer to the rear which would be approximately 0.2m above the eaves and set in slightly below the roof ridge and in from the sides of the roof.

I saw no hip to gable extensions on [address] or [address] and although there were several on [address] they are not characteristic of the area around the appeal site. Similarly, the only rear dormers visible from the public highway were several at the rear of houses on [address]. None were visible at the rear of houses on [address] or [address]. As such they are not in keeping with the architectural style of the host property or most houses within the area.

The proposed dormer would dominate the rear roof and appear particularly obtrusive when seen from the junction of [address] and [address] where the hip to gable extension would be seen in the context of the adjoining house and appear out of place with its hipped roof., High hedges along the rear garden boundary where it meets the pavement edge, and a tree, would to some extent screen views of the proposed development when approaching the house along [address] from the junction until almost level with the house where it would be highly visible again. Approaching from the opposite direction along [address] and when passing the front of the appeal property on [address] the rear dormer would not be visible but the hip to gable extension would, again, be clearly visible and would appear out of keeping with the adjoining house and thus unbalance the appearance of the semi-detached pair.

Overall, I conclude that the proposed roof extension would harm the character and appearance of the host property and its neighbour and thus the surrounding area and therefore conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework (2024), Policy ENV3 of the Black Country Core Strategy (2011), Policies S6 and L1 of the Dudley Borough Development Strategy (2017), [name] DLP14 and DLP39 of the Dudley Local Plan ([name]) and the advice contained within the SPD which require high quality design which responds to the context and character of the area.

The appellant contends that the roof extensions would be lawful under permitted development rights. The Council dispute this claiming that there is insufficient detail on the plans to establish lawfulness.

It is not within the scope of this appeal to determine the lawfulness of the proposed development which should be determined under the provisions of section 192 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 through a Certificate of Lawfulness of [name] or Development (CLOPUD) application. Nonetheless, insofar as I have been able to take measurements from the plans, they do not coincide with the appellant’s measurements. Although the discrepancies are small, they are enough to cast doubt over whether the proposed development would fall within the volumetric limits for permitted development.

Therefore, in the absence of a CLOPUD confirming that the proposed development would be lawful, or evidence that it would be developed in the event of this appeal being dismissed, I accord this matter limited weight. It does not therefore outweigh Appeal Decision: 6004139 the harm that I have identified or the conflict with the Development Plan Policies and supporting guidance.

Therefore, for the reasons given I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.