Appeal 6009446

The appeal is dismissed.

I have taken the description of the proposed development in the banner heading above from the Council’s decision notice as this gives a more accurate description of the proposal.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development upon the character and appearance of the host building and the surrounding area.

The appeal property is a 2-storey detached house which sits behind a front drive. A front projecting flat roofed porch is joined to a flat roofed side garage. These are original features retained on Nos 21, 19 and 17 which share the same design as the appeal property and remain unaltered other than some fenestration changes. Other houses vary in design to some degree, some due to alterations.

The proposal is to replace the single storey flat roofed garage with a 2-storey gabled front projecting wing which would extend to the front and side beyond the building lines of the existing garage. The porch would be removed and a single storey, single pitched roofed, front extension would extend to the side of the gabled wing across the remainder of the front elevation and would be finished in charcoal grey brick and grey mortar. The existing front door would be replaced by double doors, and all the front windows would be replaced.

Nothing of the original character of the house would be retained other than roof tiles to match the existing house. No other houses within [address] have 2 storey gabled front projections and as such it would appear incongruous and out of Appeal Decision: 6009446 character. The large vertical emphasis windows would be out of proportion with existing windows on the appeal property and other houses within the street. The grey brickwork on the single storey front extension would not match the existing more traditionally coloured brickwork on the host property and other houses nearby and thus appear awkward and out of keeping.

Overall, the design and materials would fail to harmonise with the existing building or other houses within [address] and the proposal would thus conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework (2024), saved policies GP2 and ENV32 of the Walsall Unitary Development Plan (2005), policies CSP4, ENV2 and ENV3 of the Black Country Core Strategy (2011), and DW3 and [name] of the Designing Walsall Supplementary Planning Document (Revised) (2013) which require high quality design that takes account of local distinctiveness and preserves local character.

I have had regard to the examples provided by the appellant of other alterations and extensions approved by the Council elsewhere within the wider housing estate. The most relevant, involving similarly designed houses where alterations included 2 storey front gabled projections, were 17, 38 and [address]. The developments substantially changed the appearance of the houses but did not appear as out of character as the appeal proposal due to the variation in house designs on [address] which included existing properties with 2 storey gabled elements. Also, I note the Council’s comments that the permissions at Nos 38 and 54 were for replacement dwellings rather than extensions to an existing house and are not therefore directly comparable to the appeal proposal. In any event, I must consider the appeal scheme on its own merits. The existence of these other planning permissions does not justify the harm I have identified.

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