Appeal 6004224

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on:  the character and appearance of the host property;  the living conditions of the existing occupiers having particular regard to privacy;  the living conditions of future occupiers having particular regard to the relationship with nearby industrial/commercial premises;

The appeal proposes a first-floor rear extension to an existing care home which currently comprises a rendered two-storey early twentieth century house set back from the highway in a substantial plot, which has been extended approximately fifty metres towards the rear of the appeal site. The principal elevation of the host property is symmetrical with a central porch, matching flat roofed bays, and a pitched, tiled roof with a modest ridge height. Overall, the building has a balanced and legible profile which is prominent in the street scene.

It is evident that the original building has undergone remodelling and alterations over time. Nevertheless, it retains a clear distinction between the original building and later additions, with the main building reading as a defined element when viewed from the side and the street. The existing extensions comprise a brick built two storey extension and a very substantial single‐storey extension. Notwithstanding the contrast in design and materials, due to its single‐storey scale, this addition is visually subordinate to the original building when perceived in the round and does not unduly compete with the prominence of the original two‐storey form.

By extending the building upward along the lengthy footprint of the existing single storey extension, the appeal proposal would significantly increase the building’s overall bulk and massing, adding substantial additional built form that would no longer read to any extent as a subordinate addition. Notwithstanding the slightly lower ridge height of the extension, it would dominate the original two‐storey house, resulting in an unbalanced appearance, which would be widely visible from the rear of neighbouring dwellings, nearby industrial premises, by care home residents and visitors, and from the street due to the open frontage. In these views, the cumulative scale, design, and form of the extension would be highly prominent and would appear incongruous, failing to respect either the scale or character of the original building.

The Designing Walsall Supplementary Planning Document for [name] ([name]) advises that new development should be informed by the surrounding character and respond in a positive way to it by reflecting local urban design characteristics such as street patterns, building scale, topography, and culture. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) indicates that development should be visually attractive, and sympathetic to local character and history including the surrounding built environment. Against that guidance, I have assessed whether the extension would respect the host building’s established scale and form, remaining visually subordinate and sympathetic in its context.

I therefore conclude that the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host property. It would conflict with saved policies GP2 and ENV2 of the Walsall Unitary Development Plan (WUDP) which require development to make a positive contribution to the environment and to properly take account of its context and surroundings including its height, proportion, scale, and mass, and the effect on the character of the area. There would also be conflict with policies CSP4, ENV2 and ENV 3 of the Black Country Core Strategy (BCCS) in so far as they advise that the design of buildings will be influenced by their context, development should preserve and, where appropriate, enhance local character, and ensure the provision of a high quality network of streets, buildings and spaces.

The proposed first floor extension would provide seventeen additional care home bedrooms, together with living space and associated facilities. A rear garden area would be retained, albeit reduced to facilitate an enlarged parking area to serve increased staff and visitor numbers. The existing ground floor of the appeal building sits above the external ground level to accommodate changes in levels across the site. This elevates the baseline of the extension. The result would be that it would increase the height and prominence of the proposed first-floor windows. The extension would include windows along its full length facing directly towards the shared boundaries with neighbouring properties, resulting in significant overlooking of the private garden areas of the adjacent properties.

The overlooking and associated sense of intrusion arising from the appeal proposal would be experienced by occupiers of properties on both [address] and [address].

[address], the most pronounced effect would be on occupiers of the neighbouring property at [address]. Due to the lengthy but proportionately narrow gardens, the effect would also be felt by properties beyond number 202 albeit diminishing further from the appeal site.

The access and parking areas of the [address] properties separate the dwellings from their gardens and form their principal rear approach, such that day to day comings and goings and meaningful use of private amenity space occur closer to the shared boundary with the appeal site. In addition, on [address] a greater number of dwellings would be affected because the proposed extension would run perpendicular to the ends of their gardens.

The overall scale of the proposal, including its considerable length running alongside neighbouring plots and its bulk and dominance, would intensify the perception of being overlooked and increase the sense of enclosure and intrusion experienced by occupiers of those properties. In this context, the close proximity of the proposed first floor accommodation, particularly where projecting elements would lie nearest the boundary, would enable elevated views towards these areas and rear approaches. This would result in a significant degree of overlooking and an unacceptable loss of privacy harmful to neighbouring living conditions.

The appellant suggests that the proposal could be mitigated by the use of obscure glazing, landscaping, and due to who the future occupants would be. The proposed mix of clear and obscured glazing to the bedroom windows on the [address] elevation would not materially reduce the perceived overlooking and sense of intrusion.

Along the boundary with [address] there is an established, maintained mixed species hedge, but it is not of sufficient height to have a material effect on the likely overlooking. Further planting is proposed between that boundary and the new access road serving the proposed rear car park, however, that would take a considerable time to establish and, given the scale and prominence of the proposed extension, would not provide meaningful or timely screening to mitigate the identified loss of privacy, even if it were to mature successfully. Similar considerations apply along the [address] boundary where the space available for planting is constrained and, from my site visit, I noted a number of stumps indicating that trees have previously been removed. In these circumstances, it is uncertain that substantial planting could be established and maintained in the limited strip available and, in any event, it would not provide an effective or timely remedy to the harm arising from overlooking.

The appellant’s surprising suggestion that overlooking would be reduced because future occupiers of the care home may be visually impaired does not address the concerns as the perception of being overlooked would not depend on unknown personal circumstances of future occupiers of the care home.

The proposed first‐floor balcony would not directly face neighbouring gardens. However, it would introduce an elevated external sitting area serving the extension, enabling future occupiers to spend periods outside with opportunities to look towards adjoining private space. Use of this raised external area would increase the perceived level of overlooking and materially intensify the sense of intrusion experienced by occupiers of adjacent properties. The angle of the appeal property relative to the boundaries means that this would be more significant for the properties on [address] than those on [address]. The appellant contends this would be mitigated by obscure full height glazed screens to the side elevations of the balcony. These are not shown on the plans before me but could be conditioned if planning permission is granted. Nevertheless, even with the screens, harm would arise due to the elevated position and active use of the balcony.

Drawing these issues together, I find that the proposed development would harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with particular regard to the loss of privacy resulting from overlooking. Consequently, in this regard, it would be in conflict with policies GP2 and ENV 32 of the WUDP, and policy CSP4 of the BCCS in that they advise that development which would have an unacceptable adverse impact on the environment and poorly designed development proposals which fail properly to take account of the context or surroundings will not be permitted, and seek proposals which make a positive contribution to place making.

Refusal reason two also referred to policy DW3 and [name] of the [name]. However they address character and numerical guidelines for residential development respectively, and it has not been explained how they relate to this main issue. Accordingly in respect of this main issue, these policies weigh neither in favour nor against the appeal proposal.

The appeal proposal would increase the number of occupiers of the care home. However, as a first-floor extension it would not bring any sleeping accommodation closer to the boundary with the neighbouring commercial premises than exists at present. The floor plans indicate that the nearest part of the extension to that boundary is a balcony and lounge area, rather than bedrooms.

Apart from emergency works, maintenance activity and deliveries, the neighbouring activities which include heavy goods vehicle movements, use of large machinery, and use of a commercial wash bay, take place largely during daytime hours. This would be experienced against a typical background of general activity and traffic noise when disturbance would be less noticeable than at night. The care home benefits from a sizeable rear garden with mature trees and bushes beyond the garden boundary. This would provide separation from activity at the commercial premises. No evidence has been provided of noise complaints from existing occupiers of the care home. If planning permission were granted, the proposed additional parking in the current garden area and associated movements would also add to the overall noise environment and would potentially be more noticeable within the site than activity at the more distant commercial premises.

I acknowledge the advice in the Framework that existing businesses should not have unreasonable restrictions placed on them as a result of development permitted after they were established, and where an existing business could have a significant adverse effect on new development, it is the applicant for the new development who should provide suitable mitigation. However, based on the evidence before me, I am satisfied that noise from the neighbouring premises would not be likely to materially harm the living conditions of future occupiers of the appeal proposal, nor would the operation of those premises be likely to be unreasonably constrained by future complaints.

Accordingly, I find that the proposed development would not have an adverse impact on living conditions of future occupiers, with particular regard to the nearby industrial/commercial premises. In this respect, there would be no conflict with WUDP Policy GP2, nor with the relevant guidance in the [name] (Policies DW1, DW2) insofar as they seek to ensure appropriate environmental protection and safe and sustainable places for residents and businesses.

Refusal reason four also referred to policy DW6 of the [name] which concerns legibility, and as such does not assist my determination of this

The appellant has made detailed submissions about the Council’s handling of the application, including correspondence between the parties, the time taken to determine the application, and perceived inconsistency between earlier advice and the subsequent refusal. However, my role is to determine the appeal on its planning merits, based on the evidence before me having regard to the development plan and other material considerations. It is not for me to investigate the Council’s procedures or the conduct of correspondence, and these matters do not affect my assessment of the appeal proposal.

The appeal proposal would enable the existing care home business to expand as supported by the Framework which advises that significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth and productivity. Economic benefits would include employment and expenditure associated with the construction phase and, in the longer term, additional jobs and related economic activity in the local area and this attracts positive weight in my determination.

The provision of additional care home bed spaces would help to meet an identified need for such accommodation. The existing facility is a “good” rated care home providing accommodation and personal care for thirty-four older residents, and the appellant states that the Council’s social services have indicated a wish to place further residents there, which underscores the benefit of increasing capacity.

In reaching my decision, I have had regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) as set out in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 (the Act). The duty requires decision makers to have due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation, advance equality of opportunity, and foster good relations between those who share a protected characteristic and those who do not. The PSED does not dictate that any particular decision must be reached but I have considered the equality implications as an integral part of the determination of this appeal.

In this case, future occupiers would be likely to have protected characteristics of age and/or disability, and additional and improved care accommodation could benefit such groups by increasing capacity and choice of provision. This matter weighs in favour of the appeal proposal and I have taken these equality implications into account as part of the overall planning balance set out below.

The proposed development would result in harm to the character and appearance of the host property and to the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring dwellings. These harms would conflict with the development plan when read as a whole.

The appeal proposal would provide economic benefits as discussed above as well as additional and improved care home facilities adding to capacity and benefitting future occupiers who may have protected characteristics. However, taking these matters together I conclude that these material considerations do not have sufficient weight to justify a decision other than in accordance with the development plan, and accordingly it is proportionate to dismiss the appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.