Appeal 6004399

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for single storey rear, side and forward porch extensions, and two storey side and rear extensions at [site address] , [name] [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref P25/1096, subject to the following conditions:

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

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 25015 - 001, 002, 003, 004, 005, 006 and 007.

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby approved shall match those used in the existing building.

I have taken the description of the proposal in my banner from the application form. The scheme includes a first floor extension above part of an incomplete ground floor extension, whose side walls have been constructed, but not the roof. Thus, whilst the Council has previously determined that prior approval was not required for a 4.4 metre deep single storey rear extension to the host (‘the PA’)1, notwithstanding the highlighted areas on the submitted drawings, I have considered the impact of the scheme as a whole, including the partially built ground floor rear extension.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: 1 Ref: P25/0210/PNA • The character and appearance of the host property and the area; and • The living conditions of adjacent occupiers with particular regard to the outlook from, and availability of natural light to, [address] (‘No 6’) and [address] (‘No 8’).

The properties in [address] are set back from the road behind a central green, and are arranged in semi-detached pairs and short terraces, with brown coloured brickwork, and hipped roofs. The development pattern, and the consistent style and appearance of the buildings, gives the area much of its distinctive character.

The host and No 8 form a typical semi-detached pair. The Council does not object to the design of the proposed porch and single storey rear/side extension. Given the porch’s small size and the diverse style of nearby porches, and the fairly limited height and scale of the single storey extension, I agree with that assessment.

Given its depth, its width, and its crown roof, the proposed two storey side/rear extension would have a considerable scale and bulk. However, it would broadly reflect the style, roof lines, and form of the host, it would be set well below its ridge, it would be faced with matching materials, and it would be contained well within the boundaries of this particularly spacious corner plot. It would also be recessed to the rear of the host’s front face, such that only part of it would be glimpsed in the streetscene, where it would appear subordinate.

The two storey side/rear extension would be much more visible in private views from adjacent properties, but given its form, its set down, and its matching materials and fenestration, it would not appear out-of-place.

The proposal would not therefore cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the host property or the area, and it would not conflict with policies S6 and L1 of the Dudley Borough Development Strategy 2017 (‘DDS’). Amongst other things, and in general terms, these require extensions to be of an appropriate form, siting, scale, mass and materials, which respect, and are responsive to, the context and character of the surrounding area, and which do not have a detrimental impact on the host.

Neither would it conflict with the stance on good design which is sympathetic to local character in the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (‘Framework’), or with the advice in the [name] Planning Document 2023 (‘SPD’) that extensions should relate to the design of the original house and should appear subordinate in scale and proportions.

In order to protect the amenity of adjacent neighbours, the SPD sets out that extensions should comply with its 45 degree code. In this case, the appellant agrees with the Council that the single storey rear extension would breach a 45 degree line drawn from the mid-point of No 8’s ground floor patio doors, but states that it is unreasonable for the Council to object to that element in this scheme given the PA decision.

I have not been provided with all the details of the PA, but on the basis of the evidence before me, the Council would not have carried out an assessment of the extension’s impact on the amenity of adjoining properties. That said, given that the part of this scheme closest to the boundary with No 8 has a limited 3 metre height, that there is a roughly 1.8 metre high boundary fence, and that No 8’s patio doors are set in from the boundary, the proposal would not have a significantly harmful impact on the outlook from that property. For similar reasons and having regard to the sun’s trajectory and the extension’s siting to the north of No 8, the scheme would not cause those occupants to suffer a harmful loss of natural light.

No 6 is orientated at roughly right angles to the host, such that its rear elevation, which contains many of its habitable room windows and patio doors, faces away from the appeal site. The outlook from there is down that property’s own spacious rear garden and would be unaffected by this proposal.

I understand that No 6’s side facing ground floor window serves a kitchen. However, that window is set well away from the boundary with No 7, and a boundary fence limits its outlook. Viewed from that window, the two storey flank of the proposed extension would be seen offset to the right above the fence, but the outlook looking straight from that window and to the left down that property’s garden would not be significantly impacted. Thus, whilst the scheme would breach a 45 degree line drawn from No 6’s kitchen window, it would not have a harmfully adverse impact on the outlook from that room nor, on the basis of the available evidence, on the amount of natural daylight that it receives.

For these reasons, notwithstanding that the scheme would not fully accord with the advice in the SPD, the living conditions at No 6 and No 8 would not be impacted to a harmful degree. It would not therefore conflict with that part of DDS Policy L1 which requires proposals not to cause unacceptable harm to the amenities of neighbouring occupiers, having regard to matters such as privacy, outlook and sunlight, taking account of factors including levels, orientation and separation.

With due consideration to other users, there would be space for 2 or [address] off-road within the site on the host property’s forecourt. Even if, on occasions, there was a need for some on-road parking, I have no cogent evidence that this would be detrimental to highway safety, or cause significant congestion, on this residential close.

I have considered suggested conditions against the tests in the Framework. As well as the standard time limit, in the interests of certainty, I have imposed a condition requiring that the development be carried out in accordance with the approved plans. In the interests of good design, a condition is also necessary requiring that the extensions be faced with matching materials.

For these reasons, and having regard to all other matters raised, including an objection by an interested party, the appeal is allowed.