Appeal 6008766

The appeal is dismissed.

I have taken the description of the proposal from the application form, although I have also taken note of the amended description cited in the Council’s decision and the appellant’s statement, and that the scheme includes a single storey side extension and a rear dormer.

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 neighbouring occupiers, with particular regard to outlook and the availability of natural light.

The host comprises an end of terrace property, with a short rear garden, which is located on the western side of [address] South close to its junction with [address]. It has a principally hipped roof form, but with a gabled single storey side extension, which includes accommodation in its roofspace, and whose side elevation faces the rear outdoor amenity space of [address] (‘No 108’).

I observed that there is a mix of mainly terraced and some semi-detached houses in the surrounding area. The properties, including the others in this terrace, are typically modest in scale, and generally in proportion to the size of their small plots. Appeal Decision: 6008766

Compared to the host’s existing side extension, the proposal would be taller, its eaves line would be much higher, and its first floor accommodation would extend across most of the building’s depth. It would thereby have a significantly greater bulk and mass above ground floor level and, unlike the existing extension, it would also abut the boundary with No 108 at ground floor level.

Consequently, although the scheme would not lead to a reduction in the size of the host’s rear garden, the quantum of development on this small plot would be significantly increased. Notwithstanding the scheme’s appropriately hipped roof form, its first floor set back, and the use of matching materials, the resultant development would appear cramped in the streetscene. Viewed from nearby properties, including No 108, it would appear very tight on this small plot. It would have a visually overwhelming impact, and would jar with the surrounding context where buildings are typically in proportion to the size of their plots.

For these reasons, the proposal would significantly harm the character and appearance of the host property and the area. It would therefore conflict with Policy SAD EOS 9 of the Sandwell Site Allocations and Delivery Development Plan Document 2012 (‘SSADPD’), which rejects poor design and sets out, in general terms, that development shall not be out of scale or incompatible with its surroundings.

It would also conflict with the advice in the [name] Supplementary Planning Document 2014 (‘SPD’) which seeks to resist the over intensification of dwellings by extending them to an unreasonable degree.

The SPD advises that there should be a minimum separation distance of 14 metres between one or two storey gables and rear facing windowed elevations. In this case, although the distance between the side wall of the host’s existing extension and the rear face of No 108 already falls well short of that guidance, its impact on those neighbours is tempered by its low eaves, its single storey form, its set in from the boundary, and by the limited height and mass of its shallow pitched roof.

In comparison, the proposed extension would be taller, its first floor would extend across most of the depth of the existing building, and it would have a much greater bulk and mass above ground floor level. The Council calculates that the distance from the scheme’s first floor side wall to the rear face of No 108 would be around 5.2 metres. Thus, although the proposed ground floor side extension would have a limited impact due to its low height and the existing boundary wall, having regard to the site’s context and No 108’s very short amenity space, the proposed first floor would cause a significant sense of enclosure to those occupants.

I have not been provided with evidence to determine whether or not the scheme would cause a significant loss of light at No 108, and I am therefore unable to reach a firm conclusion on that matter. However, whilst this is a densely developed area where the existing urban grain does not always comply with the guidelines in the SPD, for the above reasons, the scheme would have a harmfully adverse overbearing impact on the neighbouring occupiers’ living conditions.

Although the Council’s first reason for refusal does not refer to the development plan, the scheme would conflict with that part of SSADPD Policy SAD EOS 9 which requires development to consider its effect on the surrounding area. Additionally, Appeal Decision: 6008766 having regard to the Council’s officer report, the cumulative scale of extensions would unduly impact neighbouring properties in conflict with the advice in the SPD.

I have found that the proposal would have a harmfully adverse impact on the character and appearance of the host property and the area, and a similar impact on the living conditions at [address]. It would therefore conflict with the development plan. For these reasons, and having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is dismissed.