Appeal 6006753

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: (a) the character and appearance of the host property and its surroundings, and (b) the living conditions of the residents of [address] with specific reference to light and visual impact.

The correspondence on ownership certification has been noted, and I am satisfied that it is in order. I have also noted the appellants’ comments on the Council’s alleged behaviour and performance in dealing with the original application. To clarify, it is not part of my duties to examine those aspects. Rather it is to determine the appeal on its planning merits.

Based on a response to a question in the appeal form my visit was arranged on the basis that no access to the site was needed. However, that was changed at my request to enable me to properly assess the effects of the proposal at rear of the appeal property and at No 13, to which the appeal property is adjoined.

The appeal property, a semi-detached dwelling, is situated on a short street within a larger residential estate. Many of the houses are similarly designed, with render finishes and slated roofs, although some have been replaced with tiles. I noted that No 19 nearby had undergone an extension, which appeared visually acceptable. The effects of the proposal on the appeal property at the front and side would not be dissimilar, and they would appear as acceptably designed when viewed from the street.

The rear of the property is far more visually sheltered, with a woodland immediately beyond the garden providing ample screening. The new build would extend virtually across the full width of the plot. Although the proposed extension is large, those parts at the rear would have no discernible impact on the public realm being screened by extant development or dense vegetation. Although the dwelling would be substantially altered, I would not regard those changes as harmful in their effect.

I therefore conclude that the proposal would sit acceptably in its spatial context having no harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host property and its surroundings. Accordingly, no conflict arises with the relevant provisions of policies ENV2 and ENV3 and of the Black Country Core Strategy (CS) and policies L1, S6 and S8 of the Dudley Borough Development Strategy (DS) requiring designs to be of a high quality, to respond to local character and visual amenities and to reinforce local distinctiveness.

The extension would be 6m or so in depth and built at right angles to the property’s rear elevation. There would be some, albeit limited separation between Nos 13 &15 at the point closest to their rear elevations. However, since the boundary fence separating the properties runs at an angle, the deepest part of the rear extension would be built virtually on the ownership boundary. A ‘land-locked’ triangle of land with a very narrow base would separate the extension from the boundary fence.

Taking into account the orientation of the respective properties, with their rear elevations facing north-west, and the smallness of the window on No 13’s ground floor closest to the boundary, I share the appellant’s view that any loss of sun or daylight to No 13, internally and externally, would be minimal and should not prove problematical.

However, when viewed from that part of the garden closest to the house at No 13 the extension, in view to its close proximity to the common boundary, would appear bulky and oppressive, a factor accentuated by the extension’s ridged roof, which rises to the cill of a first floor window. No 13’s residents would feel harmfully hemmed-in by the development on account of its proximity and bulkiness.

I therefore conclude that the extension would have a harmful impact on No 13’s residents by reason of its adverse visual impact. Accordingly, a clear conflict arises with those provisions of DS policy L1 which provides that development should not cause unacceptable harm to the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings.

All other matters raised in the representations have been considered. The policies referred to in the emerging Dudley Local Plan could attract some weight given that the hearing appears complete, but I have relied on the policies of the adopted development plan. I have also noted the Council’s references to its Supplementary Planning Document on [name].

The Council’s officer report assesses other issues, including those concerned with the relationship of the proposal with No 17. I share the Council’s assessment on this aspect, for the same reasons. No other matter raised is of such strength or significance as to outweigh the considerations leading to my conclusions.

I find in favour of the appellants on the first main issue - that relating to the effects of the proposals on the character and appearance of the host property and its surroundings. However, I find against them on the second issue - the effect on the living conditions of No 13’s residents by reason of its adverse visual impact. On balance, this is sufficient reason to dismiss the appeal.

I am aware that No 13’s residents did not formally object to the scheme. However, this is not decisive in my considerations since, as required, my assessment and judgement are based on the planning merits of the proposals having regard to development plan policy.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.