Appeal 6008334

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues for this appeal are: • The effect of the proposed extension on the character and appearance of the property and wider area; and, • The effect of the proposed extension on the living conditions of the occupiers of no [address] with regards to outlook.

The appeal site is a terraced two-storey residential property on the western side of [address] within a primarily residential area. The property has a single-storey, rear projection with a mono-pitched roof which is adjoined and mirrored by an equivalent addition to the rear of no 77. Beyond this, the appeal property extends further with a narrower and lower mono-pitched outrigger.

The proposed extension would adjoin and partially subsume the larger rear projection and wholly replace the smaller. It would be slightly wider and marginally taller than the larger of the two existing structures and have a mono-pitched roof. It would provide for a larger kitchen and a bathroom.

The majority of properties in the vicinity have either two-storey outriggers, single storey rear extensions or a combination of the two, faced in a variety of materials and of eclectic design. By incorporating a matching roof pitch and materials and being sited to the rear of the property where public views of the proposal would not be possible, the extension would neither constitute poor design nor be disproportionate by reason of its massing or scale in relation to the host dwelling or the wider area. Accordingly, I find that the proposal would accord with Policy ENV3 of the Black Country Core Strategy (2011) (BCCS), and Policy SAD EOS 9 of the Site Allocations and Delivery Development Plan Document (2012) (DPD) which together seek to deliver development of high design quality and resist those clearly out of scale or incompatible with their surroundings.

The proposed extension would result in a significant wall of 5m in height extending some distance beyond the rear of the existing kitchen. Whilst partially subsuming existing structures, the resultant development would be both taller and longer than the existing.

No objection has been raised by to the proposal by the neighbouring occupiers. Notwithstanding this, I find that the proposal would be an oppressive structure along the common boundary and would harm the living conditions of the occupiers of no 77 by dominating a significant length of their rear garden, creating an undue sense of enclosure. This would be contrary to the generally open character of the rear garden, formed in part by the existing low boundary treatment. The affected part of the garden is that closest to the house and thus the area most likely to be used for recreation by its occupiers, compounding the harm caused.

The appellant makes reference to other extensions approved in the locality. Whilst no addresses were provided, it is clear that several nearby houses have rear extensions. However, I observed none that present a wall of similar height for a comparable length along a shared boundary. These other extensions do not therefore weigh in favour of the development. The appellant further advances that the extension would not breach the 45-degree code guidance and would be restricted to single storey height. However, notwithstanding this, for the reasons set out above, the considerable height and length of the extension would cause significant harm to the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers.

Taking account of the above, I find that the proposal conflicts with Policy SAD EOS 9 of the DPD which requires development to be compatible with its surroundings. The proposal further conflicts with the guidance of the council’s [name] (2014) which seeks to prevent residential extensions which would harmfully impact on the occupiers of neighbouring properties.

Decision makers are required by the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) set out in Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 to have due regard to advancing equality of opportunity, fostering good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it, and to eliminate discrimination in relation to, amongst others, age or physical impairment. The appellant advises that the extension would benefit an elderly resident who uses a wheelchair. It has not been explained why an extension of this size, design or height would be required to meet their needs. However, I give positive weight to this matter in my decision.

The appellant is frustrated at the council’s handling of the application. Such concerns fall outside the scope of this appeal and are a matter for the council and appellant to resolve.

I have found that the proposal would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the area would accord with Policy ENV3 of the BCCS and Policy SAD EOS 9 of the DPD. It would also deliver the benefits described above to the occupiers of the appeal property. However, significant harm would be caused to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers in conflict with Policy SAD EOS 9 of the DPD and I conclude that this harm outweighs the PSED benefits to the appellant.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 20024 requires that where regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the planning Acts, the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

On balance, having considered all the matters set out above, material considerations do not indicate that permission should be granted for development that is not in accordance with the development plan.

For the above reasons, and having regard to all matters raised, I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.