Appeal 6004248

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for single storey front extension, first floor side/rear extension, and replacement of existing tile hanging to front elevation with render finish at [site address] [site address] [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/25/71038, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development shall be carried out in accordance with the following plan: 4/4/24-02-[name].

Any parts of side-facing first floor windows below a height of 1.7m above floor level shall be non-opening and obscure glazed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the street scene.

The appeal site (No.63) is a large detached house dating from the late twentieth century of a distinctive late twentieth-century (C20) design which is emphasised by its handed pairing with a nearly identical property adjacent. These sit within an area populated by a wide mix of housing typologies such as back-of-pavement nineteenth-century terraces and detached mid twentieth-century bungalows and, therefore, a variety of plot sizes within an irregular development pattern which has emerged from sequenced infilling or replacement over several decades.

The Council’s main concern is the loss of symmetry represented in the dwelling pair of No.63 with its neighbour. However, an extant consent1 for No.63 involves a number of significant changes to external appearance including additional bulk from a part upper-storey side addition. The appellant points to this permission as a fallback position. Although that would retain the strong gable feature of the original building, its side extension and removal of tile-hanging would, in all practical terms, destroy that symmetry.

Policy SAD EOS9 of the Sandwell Site Allocations and Delivery Development Plan Document (2012) (SADDPD) indicates that the Council will reject designs which are ‘inappropriate in their locality’ and have regard to the effect of buildings on the surrounding area. Whilst the distinctive design of No.63 and its neighbour make a positive contribution to the surrounding area, the works previously approved2, which I consider carry a reasonable prospect of implementation, would appear as a conspicuous alteration to one of a pair of houses, whereas the appealed proposal would appear as an individual design perhaps as a replacement or infill dwelling. I consider the impact on the street-scene will be no greater than that of the fallback position and no planning harm would result.

I therefore conclude there would be no conflict with Policy SAD EOS9 of the SADDPD, nor therefore, with ENV3 of the Black Country Core Strategy 2011 which requires development to be of high design quality based on an understanding of place and therefore, for the reasons given, and having regard to all matters raised, the appeal succeeds. In addition to the usual plans and timing conditions the parties have agreed that outlook from side-facing windows should be restricted in the interests of privacy.