Appeal 6005201

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a first floor extension over the garage and new balconies at [site address] , Kinver, Staffordshire [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/00975/FULHH, 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 drawings: PP-14494194v1, 4853-01 and 4853-02A.

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

I have taken the description in my banner from the application form, although I note that the submitted drawings depict two balconies on the front elevation.

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

The South Staffordshire Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document 2018 (‘SPD’) sets out that much of the beauty and character of the area’s villages lies in the materials and detailing of their buildings, and that successful new development should take inspiration from the surrounding environment.

The properties on [address] are predominantly detached, set back from the highway, and finished in a palette of materials including red/brown brick, render, cladding and tiles. The buildings’ form and proportions are varied, and includes bungalows, dormer bungalows, and two storey houses. As illustrated by the Appeal Decision: 6005201 photographs in the appellant’s statement, and as I observed on my visit, 72 and [address] to this site each have a single front facing balcony.

The proposed first floor side extension would be set well back from the host’s front face, its ridge would be set down below the ridgeline, and it would be faced with matching materials. As a result, it would appear appropriately subordinate to, and would integrate with, the host property.

The scheme would also include two first floor balconies, one of which would be directly in front of new French doors on the building’s front face, whilst the other would enclose part of the garage roof. Both balconies would be set well back from the road, and the balcony above the garage would be partially screened approaching along [address] from the east by a proposed pitched roof. Whilst existing balconies nearby have railings, the glazing on these features would assist in limiting their visual impact.

As a result, the proposed balconies would not be prominent in the streetscene, and they would not appear incongruous in the context of the diverse surroundings. The scheme would not therefore harm the character and appearance of the area.

Amongst other things, and in general terms, policy EQ11 of the [name] 2012 requires high quality design, with appropriate detailing, which respects local character and distinctiveness. For the above reasons, the scheme would not conflict with that policy, nor with the similar stance on high quality design which responds to local character in the National Planning Policy Framework (‘Framework’), or with the advice in the SPD.

I have considered the matter of conditions against the Framework’s tests. 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, and to protect the character and appearance of the area, a condition is necessary requiring that the extension be faced with matching materials.

For these reasons, and having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is allowed.