Appeal 6007140

The appeal is dismissed.

In his planning appeal statement the appellant refers to alterations that could be made in order to address possible concerns, and has included some front elevations of alternative designs at Figures 21 and 22.

However, Section 16 of 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 is essentially the same scheme that was considered by the Council and by interested parties at application stage. Having regard to that advice, and as I only have front elevations of the potential alterations, for me to accept these at this stage would introduce procedural unfairness, as would the provision of feedback on those designs. I have therefore based my decision on the same drawings as the Council.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on: • the character and appearance of the host property and the area; and • the living conditions of adjacent occupiers, with particular regard to overlooking and overbearance.

The properties on this stretch of [site address] comprise a mix of detached and semi-detached houses and bungalows, which are set back from the highway. Whilst most are of a traditional appearance, some have been altered or extended, Appeal Decision: 6007140 and there is no consistent building style. That said, most, including the contemporary houses at Nos 75 and 178, exhibit a cohesive appearance.

The host is a hipped roofed bungalow, finished predominantly in brick, render and timber, which sits between a detached two storey house at No 33, and a bungalow at No 35a which has an asymmetric principal roof and similarly styled front projecting gables.

The scheme would include a roof extension with front and side facing dormers in the main part of the dwelling. Those alterations would integrate with the host, and in the context of the area they would not appear out of place.

The proposed first floor extension above the garage would have a contrasting roof form and markedly different fenestration. Whilst that would give it a contemporary appearance, its form and style would jar with, and would appear unrelated to, the remainder of the building. Additionally, notwithstanding its extensively glazed front face and light-weight columns, its much higher eaves would give it an overly dominant appearance. Thus, although its asymmetric roof draws inspiration from the roof at No 35a, unlike that property, the resultant dwelling would have an eclectic and disjointed form, which would appear visually awkward in the streetscene.

That harmful impact would also be apparent approaching along [site address] from the south, where the scheme’s first-floor blank side wall, which would project well forward of the front face of No 33, would have a stark, unalleviated appearance, and would contrast unfavourably with the generally more detailed design of buildings in the streetscene.

Although the appellant has referred me to examples of development elsewhere, including on [address], some of which he considers to be inappropriate, they do not change my conclusions regarding the impact of this proposal on this property and in this streetscene.

For these reasons, the proposal would conflict with Policies CSP4 and ENV2 of the Black Country Core Strategy 2011 (‘BCCS’), and with Policies GP2 and ENV32 of the Walsall Unitary Development Plan 2005 (‘WUDP’). Amongst other things, and in general terms, these set out the need for high quality design which makes a positive contribution to the environment and townscape, having regard to matters such as appearance, materials, height, proportions, scale and mass. It would also fail to accord with the thrust of the advice in Policy DW3 of the Designing Walsall Supplementary Planning Document 2013 (‘SPD’) to respect and enhance local identity and character unless an alternative approach is clearly justified.

The host’s garage is positioned well forward of No 33’s nearest front-facing ground floor habitable room window, and breaches a 45-degree line drawn from there. However, its low height and its flat-roofed form limit its impact on the outlook from that room. As a result of this scheme, the side wall would be roughly doubled in height. Given its significant two storey height on the plot boundary, this part of the scheme would have an overbearing impact on the outlook from that room. However, the impact on the outlook from No 33’s nearest first floor window would not be harmful as it is set well in from the boundary and the extension would be off-set well to the right. Appeal Decision: 6007140

Whilst the Council also raises concerns about the impact of the proposed dining room extension, which would have a glazed gable facing No 33, it would be single storey and the outlook from there would be broadly towards a garden fence and the neighbouring property’s side wall and obscurely glazed first floor windows, similar to the existing situation. The proposed side dormer would be close to a dormer in No 35a, but it would serve a bathroom, which is not a space where occupants typically dwell to enjoy an outlook. Consequently, neither of those elements would result in significant overlooking, or a significant perception of overlooking, of the neighbouring properties.

However, for the above reasons, the extension above the garage would have a harmfully adverse impact on the living conditions at No 33. It would therefore conflict with those parts of [name] GP2 and ENV32 which require development not to have an unacceptable adverse impact having regard to matters including overlooking, loss of privacy and the visual relationship with its surroundings.

It would also fail to accord with the broadly similar advice in the SPD, including its stance in [name] that all occupants shall be provided with a satisfactory level of amenity, and that new development should usually accord with the 45 degree code.

I have found that the proposal would significantly harm the character and appearance of the host property and the area, and that it would have a harmfully adverse effect on the living conditions at 33 [site address] . It would therefore conflict with the development plan.

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