Appeal 6007223

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the impact of the proposal upon the street scene, character of the surrounding area and the Park Conservation Area.

The appeal site is a detached residential dwelling located off [address] within a predominantly residential area, however, there are some non-residential uses in the locality including immediately adjacent to the appeal site itself. The site stands within the Park Conservation Area (CA), which is a designated heritage asset, with Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) requiring that special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving and enhancing the character and appearance of the CA.

The position of the host dwelling results in the only amenity space associated with the dwelling being located to the front of the appeal site along [address]. In that regard, I acknowledge that the appellant would be limited in terms of potential locations for an outbuilding. The appeal site benefits from a vegetation boundary which limits some views into the front of the appeal site. Despite this, views of the appeal site, and the proposed outbuilding, would be clear approaching from the east along [address] (when approaching from the direction of Park View Mews). Even if the proposal was of limited visibility, within the street scene, it should be kept in mind that character and appearance are separate matters. Character generally refers to the intrinsic qualities of an area i.e. function and layout whereas appearance, comparably, refers to the visible and aesthetic aspects of an area.

At the time of my site visit, travelling up and down [address], I found limited evidence within the immediate locality, within which the proposal would be viewed, of outbuildings or front garden development comparable to the proposed nature or scale of that which is before me within this appeal. The proposal would, therefore, be uncharacteristic in the context of the surrounding area. The stretch of [address] which runs between the junctions of [address] and [address], respectively, are clearly characterised by a consistent building line. Again, acknowledging that the available amenity space is located to the front of the host dwelling in this case, I do not find that the depth of the plot or the set back from the highway mean that it would not be experienced as typical frontage, nor it would read as forming part of the primary street elevation as submitted by the appellant.

The appellant acknowledges that the surrounding development is characterised by properties set well back from the highway within generous plots. The introduction of an outbuilding in the front garden would disrupt the established building line and general pattern of development which I find currently contributes positively to the character of the surrounding area resulting in a sense of openness around [address] which itself is a wide road with dwellings, and development, generally set back from the front boundaries as part of the CA.

The appellant outlines that, within the immediate vicinity there are substantial two storey outbuildings which are clearly visible from the public realm, however, based upon my observations at the time of my site visit and the figures included within the appellant’s appendix to their statement of case, I cannot reasonably conclude that the examples of development are comparable to the appeal proposal. The examples of development, provided by the appellant, are substantially set back and have not resulted in an outbuilding, forward of the building line, in front of a host dwelling at a notable scale as would be the case at the appeal site. Based upon my findings the proposal would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the CA.

The Council’s refusal reason also outlines concern with regard to size, bulk and height and prominent siting in terms of visual intrusion and competing, visually, with the host dwelling itself. The proposal would result in a building with a footprint in the region of 8 metres x 4.5 metres (an external floor area of 36 sq./m) with provision for usable space within the roof facilitated by two dormer windows.

The overall design (which would include eaves in excess of 2.4 metres) would result in size, bulk and height which I find would be inappropriate for its positioning and its relationship with the host dwelling itself. The space to the front of the host dwelling is limited which would be combined with extensions to the host dwelling (under construction at the time of my site visit) would result in substantial, cumulative, development which would appear cramped and would compete visually with the host dwelling which would be apparent from within both the appeal site itself but within views available from the public domain.

I acknowledge the appellant’s stated need for the outbuilding, as submitted, and that this has been stated to have been reduced in scale following pre-application discussions, however, the impact of the elements outlined above means the proposal would result in harm, which I would consider to be less than substantial, to the CA as a designated heritage asset. In accordance with paragraph 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (the Framework) where a proposal would lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits.

There is no evidence, before me, of the proposal resulting in public benefits. The benefits of the proposal are, in this case, wholly private and fail to weigh positively against the great weight that should be given to the less than substantial harm identified on this occasion. It is acknowledged that no objections were received from neighbouring properties, however, a lack of objection is a neutral consideration, and I acknowledge the appellant’s willingness to accept reasonable planning conditions, however, given the issues which have been identified the use of conditions would still fail to make the proposal acceptable in all other regards.

It is acknowledged that the appellant engaged in pre-application advice and that concerns are raised regarding the consistency and reliability of the pre-application advice provided. Pre-application advice is provided without prejudice to the determination of an application but on this occasion, I do not have a copy of the pre-application advice provided to be able to ascertain, for example, how the submitted proposal responded to the advice given. Notwithstanding this, I have considered the case based upon its merits based upon the evidence that is before me and, for the reasons set out, I find the proposal to be unacceptable as submitted.

The proposal would be contrary to Wolverhampton Unitary Development Plan 2006 Policies D4, D7, D8, D9 and H6, respectively, which are clear in their shared objective of requiring proposals to respond positively to the established pattern of streets and building and achieving appropriate design. This would include building lines, respecting the spaciousness and character of established residential gardens, making a positive contribution to the appearance of an area by means of appropriate massing and confirming that poorly designed proposals will be rejected.

The proposal would also be contrary to Black Country Core Strategy 2011 Policy CSP4 which requires proposals to demonstrate a clear understanding of historic character and local distinctiveness and show how proposals make a positive contribution to place making and Policy ENV3 which requires understanding and responding to the identify of each place.

For the reasons outlined above, and taking into account all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.