Appeal 6008315

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for Two storey side & single storey rear extension at [site address] [name] [site address] [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref P26/0110and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plan: 157825/101

Prior to construction above ground level of any part of the development hereby permitted, a scheme for boundary treatment and frontage layout to include planting of a suitable native species hedge to the side perimeter shall be submitted to and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the details approved.

All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of the buildings or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner; and any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area.

The proposal relates to a detached two-storey dwelling, [site address] (No.1), dating from the latter decades of the twentieth century which is located prominently at the lower end of [address] where it joins [address] and a narrow side lane identified as [name]. The sloping terrain in the locality is such that the position proposed for the side extension, an existing side garden approximately 6m wide, is raised above the pavement on its southern side by around 0.9m. Due to the varied topographical character of the location, that is not the case in other viewpoints, for instance in approach views from the east the frontage of No.1 relates to the steep slope of [address] as a cross-gradient.

The Council indicate concern at the scale of the side extension as being disproportionate to the size of the host dwelling that would ‘erode the openness of the corner plot’ when viewed from the south, an approach view from [address]. However, the Council do not explain in what way the purported openness of the plot benefits, or its loss harms, the street scene. Unlike many ‘corner plots’ which are planned into housing layouts as an intended urban design component (and that may be what the author of the Council’s Design Guide1 had in mind) [site address] presents as an imperfectly resolved plot on a corner; merely the start of a row of front-facing houses and from my observation the undeveloped parts of the appeal site do not contribute positively to the surrounding area.

In terms of development pattern and street scene, the lower section of [address] appears as a rhythm of housing pairs on its western side, a rhythm which ends with No.1 as a detached ‘half pair’ house. The side garden therefore appears as ‘vacant’ rather than ‘open’, unfilled airspace above an unsympathetically enclosed side/ rear garden. I consider some additional width of built form would tend to strengthen the presence of No.1 as a terminating feature in the street.

Considering the wider setting, the open space lying to the southern side of No.1, which includes a treed setting to a Church, is wholly disregarded by the original design and layout, presenting a blank gable wall and unsightly high fence above a low concrete retaining wall in the approach view referred to by the Council. Whilst it is unfortunate that the design of the proposal does not stretch itself to make best use of the opportunities presented by the site in terms of outlook, even if the proposal is no more imaginative than the original design that does not indicate harm in the way suggested. The proposed development is, in my consideration, of an appropriate design for the location and setting.

The proposed two-storey side extension would increase the width of the original building by around two-thirds but would be inset by around 2m from the side boundary with opportunity for perimeter planting to replace the unsightly fencing which, by its height and appearance, accentuates the levels difference and has an alienating impact on the street. This would be a benefit of the scheme in terms of urban greening and visual amenity that could be achieved by condition.

As the Council indicate the proposal is acceptable in other respects my reasoning directs that I should conclude an absence of conflict with Policy ENV3 of the Black Country Core Strategy 2011, Policy L1 of the Dudley Borough Development 1 As referred to in the officer report Strategy 2017 and The Dudley Council Residential Design guide 2023, which, taken together, have place-making objectives and seek that development should be responsive to the character of the surrounding area and not have detrimental impacts upon character, form and design.

Consequently, for the reasons given and taking all matters raised into account, the appeal succeeds subject to the usual timing and plans condition together with a requirement to improve visual amenity of the corner location by the introduction and maintenance of suitable planting and boundary treatment.