Appeal 6006938

The appeal is dismissed.

The application was originally meant to be determined by officers under the scheme of delegation, but a local ward councillor ‘called-in’ the application for determination by Planning Committee. I have been provided with the original officer report prepared for Committee; a supplementary officer report presented to Committee, and the Committee minutes. Officers originally recommended that permission be granted. However, in its supplementary report to Committee, that recommendation was changed.

The application was refused for 3 reasons. The first reason points to inaccuracies in the submitted plans which the Council alleges did not allow it to make a full and proper assessment of the proposals’ impacts on local amenity. However, the two other reasons for refusal indicate that judgments on amenity issues were made.

The appellant’s grounds of appeal are brief and allege that the decision to refuse, since it went against officer recommendation, was political and invalid, although no clear reasons are provided as to the basis for the allegation of invalidity. I saw nothing in the documentation indicating to me that the decision was arrived at invalidly.

The inaccuracies in the plans are listed in the officers’ supplementary report. I saw others, including mislabelling of elevations. Nevertheless, I found that the plans, despite the obvious drawbacks, enabled me to appropriately assess what the appellant has in mind, having full regard to the Council’s reasons for refusal 2 & 3 and other matters raised by local residents. I shall therefore proceed on this basis.

The appellant has made an application for costs against the Council. This is the subject of a separate decision.

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 adjacent dwellings with specific reference to light and visual impact.

The appeal property, a detached dwelling, is situated on a corner at the junction of [address] and [address]. This is a pleasant, mature residential area displaying a variety of house designs, with most houses being detached. Being sited on a corner, the plot and that which stands on it are prominent in the street scene.

The lower part of the dwelling is largely screened by hedges, although there is no indication on the plans of their presence and whether they are to be retained. However, the upper part of the dwelling and its roof are clearly apparent from the streets outside. The dwelling, built of brick with a tiled roof, sits harmoniously in its visual context, with the spaces around it contributing to forming local character, that of a spacious verdant suburban scene.

The proposals involve the considerable extension and remodelling of the dwelling. The appeal property’s single storey garage extends to the boundary shared with [address]. The intention is to convert the garage into a living room, with a new bedroom being bult above. The proposed bedroom wall closest to No 8 would be built to a point just short of the shared boundary.

Viewed from [address] the resultant relationship of the extended property with No 8 would be significantly changed. The gap separating the two properties at first floor level plays an important part in the local townscape contributing to a sense of spaciousness and the pleasant character of the area. Despite the use of a hipped gable, the gap would be irretrievably lost and the current visual relationship with No 8 would alter adversely. The new ridge line would be set well above that of No 8’s resulting in a visually awkward and crammed relationship.

A two-storey side extension is proposed in the gap currently separating the appeal property and [address]. Having regard to the nature of the gaps between other properties in the street, the principle of a two-storey extension, subject of course to its detailed design, is not to my mind unacceptable.

However, when viewed from [address], the new and altered elements in the submitted design would become the dominant visual force replacing that of the original dwelling. There would also be a significant change in the roofscape, with a crown roof being introduced at a level above that of existing ridges. This elevation would appear overly bulky and unsightly in the street scene detracting from its visual qualities. To my mind, the proposal ranks as an example of poor design having little or no regard for context.

I therefore conclude that the proposals to extend, if built, would sit unacceptably in this spatial context resulting in harmful effects on the character and appearance of the host property and its surroundings. Accordingly, a clear conflict arises with the relevant provisions of policies CSP4, ENV2 and ENV3 and of the Black Country Core Strategy (CS) and saved policies GP2 and ENV32 of the Walsall Unitary Development Plan (UDP) requiring designs to be of a high quality, to respond to local character and visual amenities and to reinforce local distinctiveness, particularly on visually prominent sites. I am also mindful of the Framework’s guidance1 in respect of poor design, that is, it should be refused permission.

The upward extension proposed above the appeal property’s garage would be sited to align with [address]’s gabled end elevation. However, so close to the boundary would it be built that it would be perceived as a dominating and intrusive addition when viewed from those parts of No 8’s front and rear gardens closest to it. The proposed side extension would fall short of the boundary of No 8. However, its mass and bulk, particularly at roof level, would also prove dominating when viewed from No 8’s rear garden.

No prior arrangements had been made to visit neighbouring properties, and I was therefore unable to properly assess issues raised by local residents including the alleged infringement of the 450 code2 and loss of privacy, particularly as they are said to affect [address].

However, having regard to my overall conclusions on the scheme, I did not consider it appropriate to delay a decision pending another site visit. Any such issues may be fully assessed later in the event of a resubmission.

I conclude that the extension would harmfully impact the residents of [address] by reason of its adverse visual impact. Accordingly, a clear conflict arises with the provisions of the Framework that decisions should ensure that developments should create places with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.

There was significant local public interest in the application. Many local residents submitted individual representations, whilst a petition containing well over a hundred signatures was submitted. The local Member of Parliament also submitted a letter supporting the thrust of her constituents’ representations. All the representations have been taken into account.

Some of the representations express a concern that the development is a precursor to other uses being made of the property. However, I am charged with determining an appeal involving extensions and alterations to a residential property and not with its prospective or possible change of use, for which a separate planning permission would be needed.

Other matters raised in the representations include parking provision and amenity space for the development. These in my view would be capable of being addressed satisfactorily. The reference to restrictive covenants and devaluation of property prices are not relevant planning matters. 1 National Planning Policy Framework 2 As outlined in the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document for [name] (SPD)

All other matters raised in the representations have been taken into account, but none outweigh those considerations leading me to my conclusions.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.