Appeal 6007453

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the effect of the appeal proposal upon the character and appearance of the area, having regard to the significance of a non-designated heritage asset and the site’s location within an Area of [name]; and the effect upon ecology and specifically the Saltwells Local Nature Reserve.

The appeal site comprises a semi-detached pair of former workers cottages located due south of the [address] Reservoir which is associated with the [name] due east of the appeal site on the opposite side of the [name].

The cottages are deemed to be non-designated heritage assets by the Council, and this is not disputed by the appellant, and I consider that their significance is derived from their simple, well-balanced vernacular, as well as providing part of the story behind the industrialisation of the Black Country. Both the application site and no. 11 adjoining have the benefit of two storey outriggers and single storey elements, with the main range of the pair of cottages retaining their original modest form.

The land falls away steeply in a south westerly direction with a retaining wall and basement area below. The land has been part cleared with the land terraced in an unfinished fashion, although this would need widening further in order to construct the three storey side extension. Appeal Decision 600743

The proposed extensions would double the width of the existing cottage, and whilst they would be set down from that of the host dwelling, the semi-crown roof and concealed roof top terrace set behind a parapet wall with a high eaves line would appear incongruous from the front elevation, with the pairs of windows creating an uncomfortable visual duality.

The scheme would make use of the fall in levels of the site such that basement accommodation would be provided and with a heavily glazed flank elevation which would be wholly out of character with the original architecture of the cottages, both in terms of design and scale. I am sure that there is some form of design solution that would be appropriate in order to provide increased accommodation for the appellant’s family, but the proposal before me would significantly lack subserviency and would fail to provide a seamless addition which would not only be harmful to the character and appearance of the non-designated heritage assets, but also the wider area, notwithstanding that the plot of land to the south-west is largely secluded. I say this notwithstanding that I have no reason to doubt that the proposal would maximise light and heat capture into the property maximising its energy conservation eco-credentials.

[name] find that the proposal conflicts with paragraph 216 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the ‘Framework’) and its paragraph 135 which, amongst other things, stipulates that decisions should ensure that developments are visually attractive as a result of good architecture and are sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting (while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change such as increased densities). The proposal is contrary to Policy ENV2 of the Black Country Core Strategy adopted February 2011 (BCCS) and Policies S6, S8, S11, S13 and L1 of the Dudley Borough Development Strategy March 2017 (DBDS) which together require proposals to not have a detrimental impact on the character, form and design of the host dwelling; the design of residential development in general to be of an appropriate siting, scale and mass which respect and are responsive to the context of the surrounding area, whilst, ensuring that the historic character and local distinctiveness of the Black Country are protected through preventing inappropriate alterations or extensions to buildings that are of local historic importance.

The vast majority of the appeal site falls within a Local Nature Reserve (LNR) which comprises part of a green oasis within the [name] conurbation. The far southern boundary of the appeal site is situated next to a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and the aforementioned land to the west forms part of the Saltwells National Nature Reserve, one of the largest urban nature reserves in the country, of which the LNR forms part.

A significant portion of the proposed development would be constructed within the LNR and BCCS Policy ENV1 stipulates that development is not permitted where it would harm, amongst other things, regionally designated nature conservation sites; and goes on to say that current designated LNRs will be carried forward from existing [name], which has been the case with regard to the [name] of the Dudley Local Plan ([name]). Ultimately, the policy goes on to state that all appropriate development should positively contribute to the natural environment of the Black Country by extending nature conservation sites; Appeal Decision 600743 improving wildlife movement; and/or restoring or creating habitats which actively contribute to the implementation of biodiversity action plans at the regional level.

I have been provided with little information to demonstrate how the proposal would contribute to such aims, particularly bearing in mind the current physical condition of the site, much of which is covered in rubble; and the proposed provision of a three bay garage and driveway and turning area which signify that a fair proportion of the LNR would be permanently eroded.

An Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) was submitted as part of the proposal and highlights the site’s sensitive location and uncertain status of the habitats that may have already been lost. It does go on to state that the site does not support Ancient and Semi-natural Lowland Oak Woodland or certainly has not done so in recent years, most likely due to its historical inclusion within a domestic curtilage. Whether all of the LNR within the site is deemed lawfully as curtilage is not for me to deliberate within this appeal.

Notwithstanding this, and the habitat enhancement recommendations set out within the EcIA, I have been provided with little detail as to how the implementation and retention of such would be secured, and being within private ownership the on-going state of the LNR would be difficult to monitor and enforce. Ultimately the residential use of land and its conservation for biodiversity would conflict with each other, and without a [name] and Management Plan or something similar I am not convinced that the land would be appropriately managed for wildlife, going by its current semi-derelict appearance.

BCCS Policy CSP3 requires that development proposals will need to demonstrate that the strategic network of environmental infrastructure will be protected, enhanced and expanded at every opportunity, and comprises, inter alia, amongst other things, areas of biodiversity importance and wildlife corridors which will be achieved in part by resisting any development that compromises the integrity and quality of environmental infrastructure.

Based upon the submissions before me and notwithstanding that I note that the Council does not take issue with regard to other designated wildlife sites, I find the proposal contrary to the above policies as well as Framework paragraph 187 which stipulates that planning decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing sites of biodiversity and not only recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, but also the wider benefits from natural capital and ecosystems services whilst minimising the impacts on providing net gains for biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures.

Having regard to the above and all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal be dismissed.