Appeal 6005415

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development in the header above is taken from the planning application form. The Council’s decision notice and other appeal submissions refer to a slightly different description but there is no record that this has been agreed between the main parties. As such, my assessment is based on the original description of development.

The Council has confirmed that its decision was based upon a drawing numbered 01 with no revisions. Drawings numbered 01A have also been submitted with the appeal, one of which is marked as revision A dated 18.9.2025 and the other marked as revision B dated 20.6.25. The revision B drawing is similar to the original drawing numbered 01 although it shows slot windows at first floor level in the east side elevation of the proposed house as well as the removal of an existing garage building. However, the scheme shown on the revision A plan is significantly different to the original in terms of the size, design and orientation of the proposed house. The appellant’s written submissions also refer to other amendments that could be made to the design of the proposal.

The appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme. Generally, it is important for fairness reasons for a planning appeal Inspector to consider the same proposal as the Council. In this case, the amendments shown on the revision B plan are minor and do not fundamentally change the appeal development. Consideration of this drawing would cause no injustice to any party.

However, the revision A drawing shows an entirely different house with only 3 bedrooms so that the drawing does not correspond to the description of development. It is unclear whether the revision A drawing has been the subject of any public consultation and it would seem from the submissions it has not been assessed by the Council. Prejudice may be caused to interested parties if I were to base my decision on the revision A plan. Therefore, I confirm my assessment is on the revision B version of the drawing numbered 01A.

The main issues are (i) the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area, (ii) its effect on living conditions at [address] (No 9) with regards to outlook, (iii) whether the development would provide acceptable living conditions for future residents in terms of privacy, and (iv) whether it would provide a satisfactory access for fire appliances.

The site forms part of the garden to a dwelling in a residential area. Local properties vary in design but they tend to face directly out onto the roads and have simple, dual pitched roofs. Next to the site is an undeveloped and overgrown area. A footway runs from [address] along the side of this undeveloped land through to [address]. The appellant has referred to planning permission for the erection of 4 dwellings on this land. However, on my visit I saw no indication that construction works had commenced on this development.

The proposed house would be positioned to the rear of the existing dwelling at [address] (No 26) with its front facing towards the adjacent undeveloped site. The existing residence at No 26 would partially screen the development from [address]. However, the proposed dwelling would be seen across the undeveloped land from the road and the aforementioned footway. Even if the adjoining permitted development is constructed, the new dwellings would not entirely screen this appeal proposal from public vantage points, particularly from the footway. In any event, there would be views of this appeal development from the permitted houses and from the associated cul de sac. Also, it would be seen from other nearby residences and gardens and so it would have a noticeable visual effect.

The proposed dwelling would be unusual to the current context as it would be behind the property at No 26 rather than facing directly onto the road. If the development on the adjoining site is constructed, the dwelling would form part of a small cluster of houses around the end of a cul de sac. In such circumstances, the position of the appeal development would be in keeping with its immediate surroundings. However, I cannot be certain the development of the adjoining land will be carried out, particularly as it is not in the control of the appellant. To allow the appeal could lead to a single house in an unusual backland position but viewable from public vantage points. In such circumstances, the development would be uncharacteristic of the area.

Moreover, the proposed house would be of an unusual design with an asymmetrical pitched roof and a large flat roof dormer addition to the front roof slope. This would be at odds with the more traditional sloped roofs on nearby houses. The proposed roof would lead to the dwelling appearing top heavy and taller than other local properties as it would have a flat front elevation including windows at second floor level. Mention is made by the appellant to other developments that include box dormers but I saw none within the immediate vicinity of the site. Instead, the house would be unsympathetic to the area by reason of its unusual positioning, roof design and height.

The proposal would require the sub division of the appeal property’s back garden. However, the side elevation of the proposed dwelling would be a sufficient distance away from the rear of No 26 so as to preserve an appropriate sense of space between houses when seen from public vantage points. Also, a planning condition could be reasonably imposed to ensure the dwelling is constructed of sensitive external materials. However, these acceptable elements would not address nor overcome the unsympathetic aspects of the scheme.

For these reasons, I conclude the development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. In these regards, it would not accord with policies GP2 and ENV32 of the Walsall Unitary Development Plan 2005 (the UDP), policies CSP4, ENV2, ENV3 and HOUS2 of the Black Country Core Strategy 2011 (BCCS), policy HC2 of the Walsall Site Allocation Document 2019 (SAD) and policy DW3 of the Designing Walsall Supplementary Planning Document revised July 2013 (the SPD). Amongst other things, these policies require development to be of a high design quality and to takes account of its context. Effect on outlook from No 9.

The back garden of No 9 adjoins the side boundary of No 26. As such, the rear facing windows in No 9 would directly face the back of the proposed house.

The new dwelling would be close to the common boundary and it would stretch across a large part of the width of No 9’s back garden. As such it would be clearly seen from the rear of the neighbouring property. Moreover, the rear roof slope would be quite steep due to the asymmetric roof design. Therefore, the back elevation of the proposed house would appear similar to a 3 storey building. I note the current occupants of No 9 raise no objections to the scheme. Even so, by reason of its proximity, width and height, the house would appear overbearing from the back windows and garden of No 9. Also, the large expanse of uninterrupted brickwork and almost vertical roof slope at the rear of the house would appear unduly dominant so as to spoil living conditions at the neighbouring property.

The appellant suggests it is common to see a similar relationship between houses in urban areas compared to the proposed house and No 9. However, the existence of properties that already have a poor outlook due to their proximity to other dwellings does not justify allowing new residences that would have similar shortcomings. The permitted houses on the undeveloped land next to No 26 would be further away from No 9 compared to this appeal proposal. As such, they do not set an irresistible precedent to be followed in the consideration of this matter.

For the above reasons, I conclude the proposal would have an adverse effect on living conditions at No 9 in terms of outlook. In these regards, it would not accord with UDP policy ENV32, which resists development that fails to properly take account of its surroundings. The Council’s refusal reason also refers to UDP policy GP2. However, this makes no mention of outlook and so I find no conflict with UDP policy GP2 when considering this main issue. Living conditions for future residents.

There would be views from the rear first floor windows in No 26 and [address] towards the ground and first floor windows in the side the proposed house. The Council is concerned the separation distance between these windows would be shorter than the minimum 24m standard set out in appendix D of the SPD. Even so, the shortfall in separation distances against this standard would be fairly minor. Also, the first floor bedrooms would be served by high level slot windows in the side elevation and these would restrict external views into the house. The main windows to the front and on the other side of the dwelling would not be overlooked.

Therefore, I conclude the development would provide satisfactory living conditions in terms of privacy. In these regards, it would accord with UDP policies GP2 and ENV32. These policies require the issue of overlooking to be considered and to ensure development has regard to its surroundings. The Council’s refusal reason also refers to BCCS policies CSP4, ENV2 and ENV3 but these contain no provisions relevant to this matter. The development would be contrary to a standard in appendix D of the SPD but there is sufficient justification in this case to find the proposal acceptable in these regards, despite this non-compliance. Access for fire appliances.

The Council’s concern is the development fails to provide the minimum access width for fire appliances to safely reach the site in the event of an emergency. However, the consultation response provided on this matter refers to the requirement under “approved document B” for all points within a dwellinghouse to be within 45m of access for a pumping appliance. As such, there seems to be no requirement for a fire appliance access to be provided up to the proposed house.

The site includes a strip of land to the side of No 26 that includes a garage and adjoins the public highway. The garage is shown to be replaced by parking spaces. The house would be within the stated [address] and I see no reason why in an emergency pumped water could not be fed to the house from an appliance parked on the highway or on the parking spaces.

As such, I conclude the development would be served by a satisfactory access for fire appliances. The Council’s refusal reason on this matter refers to UDP policy GP2. However, this includes no provisions relevant to this matter. Other factors and planning balance.

Under the first 2 main issues, I have found the proposal would not accord with the UDP, BCCS and SAD policies. As such, it would not accord with the development plan when read as a whole. It follows to consider whether other factors justify granting planning permission contrary to the development plan.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) requires the Council to identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide at least 5 years’ worth of housing land against its housing requirements. The submissions indicate the Council is currently able to demonstrate less than 2 years of housing land supply against the 5 year requirement. This is a substantial shortfall. In such circumstances, paragraph 11(d) of the Framework is engaged. This states planning permission should be granted unless the circumstances in either sub-paragraph 11(d)(i) or (ii) apply.

In my consideration of the main issues, I have found no Framework policies on the protection of areas or assets of particular importance that provide strong reason to refuse the appeal development. Therefore, sub-paragraph 11(d)(i) of the Framework does not apply. It follows under the terms of sub-paragraph 11(d)(ii) to consider the benefits of the proposal against its adverse impacts.

The development would make only a modest contribution towards the supply of new housing. Nonetheless, the benefits in these regards attract moderate weight given the significant shortfall in housing land supply.

The appellant advises the house would contain energy efficiency measures and so it would help address the challenge of climate change. Also, it would be laid out internally to be suitable for disabled people. Therefore, the proposal would accord with the aims of the Public Sector Equality Duty contained in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 in terms of promoting equality between those who share a protected characteristic and those who do not. Given the scale of the development, the benefits in these respects attract modest weight.

The appellant suggests the appeal site represents brownfield land as it previously accommodated a substation. However, on my visit I saw the site occupied mainly with garden features with no indication of a substation. The definition of previously developed land in the Glossary of the Framework explicitly excludes land in built-up areas such as residential gardens and so it is inappropriate to treat the site as brownfield. Even so, the proposal would make a more efficient use of urban land. It also gains significant support from sub-paragraph 73(d) of the Framework as the scheme represents a small windfall housing development in an existing settlement.

The design shortcomings identified under the first 2 main issues need to be assessed against the benefits of the scheme. Paragraph 135 of the Framework states that planning decisions should ensure developments are sympathetic to local character and create places with a high standard of amenity for existing users of properties. Moreover, paragraph 139 of the Framework states that development that is not well designed should be refused, especially where it conflicts with local design guidance. In light of these provisions of the Framework, I attach considerable weight to the harm that would be caused by the proposal.

Overall, I find the adverse effects of the development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the scheme. It follows that the presumption in favour of sustainable development and granting permission as set out under paragraph 11(d) of the Framework does not apply. Therefore, I find insufficient justification to allow the appeal contrary to the provisions of the development plan.

The Council has raised concerns over the impact of the proposal on the integrity of the Cannock Chase Special Area of Conservation (the CCSAC). No 26 lies within the zone of influence associated with the CCSAC and there is concern the proposed dwelling would lead to additional harmful recreational activity at the protected site. However, I need not consider the effect of the development on the CCSAC any further as I have found the appeal should be dismissed for other reasons. My overall conclusion would not be affected in the event I found the development would have an acceptable effect on the protected site.

For the reasons given above, I conclude the appeal should be dismissed.