Appeal 6004589

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single storey rear and side extension at [site address] , [site address] , Dudley [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref P25/1146, subject to the following

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: location plan, block plan and drawing numbers CA-594-01 and CA-594-02.

Other than the proposed roof, 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.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: • The character and appearance of the host property and the area; and • The living conditions of the adjacent occupiers at [address], with particular regard to outlook and the availability of natural light.

The Dudley Residential Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document 2023 (‘SPD’) advises, amongst other things, that extensions should relate to the design of the original house, should match the original roof shape with side extensions which are dual or mono-pitch, and should appear subordinate in scale.

The appeal site lies within a residential area broadly comprising a mix of two storey houses and bungalows. The roofs are generally hipped or gabled, although I also observed subordinate flat roofed attached garages, and a flat-roofed rear extension at [address]. The buildings are set back from the carriageway behind pavements, and parking forecourts or gardens. The host is a typical gabled bungalow with a rear projection, which sits on the corner of [address] and [address].

The proposed extension would fill the space between the host’s side wall and the boundary with [address] (‘No 2’), and it would wrap around part of the building to the rear. Whilst its flat roofed form would contrast with the host’s sloping roofs, its low height would significantly limit its bulk, and it would be clearly subordinate. Consequently, and as its front face would be recessed compared to the front elevation of the host and No 2, it would only be glimpsed between buildings in the [address] streetscene.

The extension would be set well back from [address], and it would be partially tucked behind the host’s taller gabled rear projection. As a result, irrespective of the unauthorised fence adjacent to the highway, the extension would not be prominent in that streetscene.

Having regard to its roof shape and form, the extension would not fully comply with the advice in the SPD. However, in the context of this area where there are flat-roofed side projections, and given its limited and subordinate scale, its discrete siting, and its matching brickwork, it would not appear incongruous. It would not therefore harm the character and appearance of the host property or the area.

The scheme would not conflict with policies S6, S8 and L1 of the Dudley Borough Development Strategy 2017 (‘DDS’), or with Policy ENV2 of the Black Country Core Strategy 2011 (‘BCCS’). Amongst other things, and in general terms, these require good design, with extensions which are of an appropriate form, siting, scale, mass and materials, which respect and are responsive to local character and context, and which are not detrimental to the host.

The SPD notes that extensions, particularly those close to a boundary, can have a detrimental impact on the amenity of adjacent neighbours. It therefore advises that extensions should not breach a line drawn at 45 degrees from the neighbours’ nearest ground floor window which is the main source of light to a habitable room.

I observed that No 2 has two windows in its side elevation facing the appeal site, one of which is obscurely glazed, but the other I understand serves a dining room. Whilst the proposed extension would abut the boundary opposite the dining room window, it would be separated from it by a narrow passageway, and it would not be substantially taller than the existing close boarded timber fence. There is not a large difference in levels between these two properties and for these reasons, compared to the current situation, the scheme would not significantly restrict the already limited outlook from that room, nor the availability of natural light within it.

To the rear No 2 has patio doors which are set in from the boundary with this site and, as with the dining room window, the scheme would breach a 45 degree line drawn from them. That said, the scheme’s relatively low height and flat-roofed form, would limit its impact on the outlook from those doors and from the adjacent combination frame window, which is principally down that property’s own garden with a fairly open aspect beyond. Moreover, I observed that No 2 also has a conservatory which is set well away from this side boundary.

Having regard to the evidence at paragraphs 42 to 44 of the appellant’s statement, the low height of the extension relative to the host building, and the sun’s trajectory, I am not persuaded that the scheme would cause a significant loss of natural light to, or overshadowing of, No 2.

Summing up, whilst the scheme would breach the SPD’s 45 degree lines, it would not have a harmfully adverse impact on the outlook from No 2 nor, on the basis of the available evidence, on the amount of natural daylight that it receives.

The scheme would not impact the living conditions at No 2 to a harmful degree and it would not therefore conflict with that part of DDS Policy L1 which requires proposals not to cause unacceptable harm to the amenities of neighbours, having regard to matters such as privacy, outlook and sunlight, taking account of factors including levels, orientation and separation.

The appellant says that an almost identical extension, with only a marginally smaller footprint, could be erected under permitted development rights. However, irrespective of that claim, I have found that the proposal before me would not harmfully impact the character and appearance of the host property or the area, nor the living conditions of adjacent occupiers.

Turning to the matter of conditions, 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. Finally, in the interests of good design, a condition is also necessary requiring that the extension be faced with matching materials.

Having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is therefore allowed.