Appeal 6005202

The appeal is dismissed.

The Planning Inspectorate Procedural Guide: Planning Appeals – England 2026 states that the appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme, and that it is important that what is considered by the Inspector at appeal is essentially the same scheme that was considered by the Council and by interested parties at the application stage.

In this case, the appellant submitted revised location plan no. 25.098-HAY-DR-A- 0001 Rev PO2 (‘the revised plan’) at appeal stage. However, rather than evolving the scheme, it appears to me that the revised plan simply corrects an error in the originally submitted location plan, such that the red line now encloses the whole of the host property’s rear garden. I have therefore considered the scheme on the basis of the revised plan, and I am satisfied that my doing so does not result in procedural unfairness.

The main issues are: • The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area; and • Whether or not the proposal would provide suitable living conditions for the occupants of the host property, with particular regard to outdoor amenity space.

The appeal site is situated on a corner plot at the junction of [address] with [address]. Nearby properties on these two roads are two storeys high and are arranged in semi-detached pairs or short terraces. They have mainly hipped roofs, with some front facing gables, and are set back a fairly similar distance from the highway in long rows behind front gardens or parking forecourts. The host property forms one half of a typical semi-detached pair.

Whilst the proposed extension would be single storey and clearly subordinate to the host, its flat roofed design would give it a very utilitarian, rectilinear form, which would be at odds with the host and with other two storey buildings with sloping roofs nearby. The harmful impact of the extension’s awkward design would be compounded by the prominent location at a road junction, and by its projection well forward of the front faces of the row of houses on [address] to the east. Consequently, it would stand out as an incongruous feature in the streetscene, and it would jar with the character and appearance of the area.

The appellant has drawn my attention to development elsewhere in support of his appeal. However, the extensions at [address] and at [address] East are two storeys high and broadly reflect the form of their respective host, and I have few details of the extension which is under construction at [address]. In any event, those examples are in different streetscenes compared to this site.

For the above reasons, the proposal would conflict with Policies CSP4 and ENV2 of the Black Country Core Strategy 2011 (‘BCCS’) and Policies GP2 and ENV32 of the Walsall Unitary Development Plan 2005 (‘WUDP’). Amongst other things, and in broad terms, these require high quality design, which respects local distinctiveness and character. It would also fail to accord with the advice at Policy DW3 of the Designing Walsall Supplementary Planning Document 2013 (‘SPD’) which expects development to be informed by surrounding character and to respond positively to local urban design characteristics.

Based on the originally submitted location plan the Council maintains that the scheme would fail to comply with the advice at [name] of the SPD which sets out that houses should have gardens which are at least 12 metres long and with a minimum area of 68sqm, and that it would thereby result in an unacceptable standard of amenity for the occupants.

However, by reference to [name] maps its delegated report notes that the land to the rear forms part of the host property’s garden. That land has been included in the revised plan, which depicts a rear garden with dimensions in excess of the guidance in the SPD. That garden would therefore provide ample space for the occupants of the extended property to undertake outside domestic tasks, to relax and to play.

The scheme would thus ensure suitable living conditions for the occupants of the host property, and on this issue it would not conflict with those parts of WUDP Policy GP2, and BCCS policies CSP4 and ENV3, which require successful place-making with proposals which take account of needs and factors of environmental significance, nor with the guidance at [name] of the SPD.

Having regard to the availability of outdoor amenity space, I have found that the proposal would not result in unsuitable living conditions for the occupants of the host property, but that it would significantly harm the character and appearance of the area. Whilst the scheme would provide improved internal living conditions, that largely private benefit would not outweigh the significant harm that it would cause. It would conflict with the development plan when considered as a whole and, having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is therefore dismissed.