Erection of a single storey rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 26 March 2021 by Gary Deane BSc (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 26 April 2021 Appeal Ref: APP/C4615/D/21/3266817 65A Howley Grange Road, Halesowen B62 0HS • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr Mark Tranter against the decision of Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council. • The application Ref P20/1292, dated 2 September 2020, was refused by notice dated 29 October 2020. • The development proposed is the erection of a single storey rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural matter 2. The Council considers that the proposed extension is shown incorrectly on the Site and Location Plans. I have taken this concern into account in my assessment of the proposal, which is based on all of the evidence before me and an inspection of the site and its surroundings. On that basis, I am satisfied that the details of the proposal as shown on the drawings and detailed in the written evidence allow a reasonable assessment of the development sought. Main issues 3. The main issues are the effect of the proposed development firstly, on the character and appearance of the host building and the local area; secondly, on the living conditions of the occupiers of 65 Howley Grange Road with particular regard to outlook, visual impact and light; and thirdly, on highway safety for users of Howley Grange Road with reference to vehicle parking. Reasons Character and appearance 4. The proposal is to erect a single storey extension at the back of the appeal property, which is a 2-storey detached house within a predominantly residential area. The new addition would extend outwards from the main rear wall by 8-metres, which would be almost the full depth of the back garden. 5. In doing so, the proposal would significantly elongate the built form of No 65A, enlarge its footprint, and noticeably add to its scale and mass. Taken together with its flat roof, the proposal would appear as an overly large ‘box-like’ addition that would be disproportionate in scale, mass and depth to the host building. To my mind, it would add a discordant element that would visually Appeal Decision APP/C4615/D/21/3266817 2 dominate the rear elevation of No 65A and spoil the intrinsic character of the main house. 6. The Council’s Planning Guidance Note 17, House Extension Design Guide (PGN17) states that house extensions should relate to the character of the original house in terms of scale and design. It also notes that single storey extensions added to the side or rear of a 2-storey house should be in scale and balance with the whole of the original building. The proposal would be at odds with this guidance for the reasons given. 7. I have taken into account the proposed use of external materials to match the existing building and I saw that houses in the local area differ markedly in their design, size and general appearance. I also observed that some properties in the local area have ground floor projections with flat roofs, including the adjacent property, which is 65 Howley Grange Road. None of the examples that I saw directly compared with the scale and design of the proposal and its relationship to the host building. 8. Views of the proposal from the road would be limited given its position at the back of the house. Nevertheless, the site still forms part of the characteristics of the area as experienced and appreciated from nearby houses and gardens. When seen from the rears of some properties that address Goodrest Avenue in particular, the appeal scheme would draw the eye as a disproportionately large and bulky addition to the local area. 9. On the first main issue, I conclude that the proposed development would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the host building and the local area. As such, it is contrary to Policies CSP4, ENV2 and ENV3 of the Black Country Core Strategy (CS) and Policies L1, S1, S6 and S8 of the Dudley Borough Development Strategy (DBDS). These policies aim to ensure that new development achieves high quality design, preserves or enhances local character, and adds to the character and appearance of the local area. 10. These principles underpin the advice within the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document, New Housing Development, (SPD) and PGN17 with which the proposal also conflicts. It would be at odds with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), which states that developments should be sympathetic to local character and add to the overall quality of the area. Living conditions 11. The new extension would be set back from although close to and parallel with the shared rear boundary between the site and No 65. A tall timber fence currently marks most of this common boundary. 12. The proposal would partly enclose the outdoor space at the back of No 65, from which the upper part of the new wall would be evident projecting noticeably above the boundary fence. Due to the difference in levels, the proposed extension would occupy an elevated position relative to the rear of No 65. Consequently, when seen from this neighbouring property, the extension would appear taller than it is shown on the plans. Given this arrangement, I have little doubt that the appeal scheme would have an unduly imposing presence given its close position, considerable depth and height. To my mind, it would unacceptably reduce the quality of outlook as experienced and appreciated from the rear outdoor space of No 65. Appeal Decision APP/C4615/D/21/3266817 3 13. There would also be some additional loss of light in the later part of the day to the rear of No 65 as a result of the proposal. However, the shade cast by the appeal scheme would mostly affect a small part of the rear garden and would not be appreciable given the shadow of the existing boundary fence that separates Nos 65A and 65. 14. The Council also considers that the proposal would fail to comply with the spirit of the 45-degree code, which is line drawn at this angle from habitable room windows that are likely to be affected by development. However, from the plans before me, the existing projection at the side of No 65, which the Council states is a garage, would already affect the outlook from and natural light reaching to the windows of the main 2-storey building. For this reason, a breach of the 45-degree code, would be insufficient reason in itself to withhold planning permission. 15. I also note that the current occupiers of No 65 have not objected. However, my assessment takes into account future occupiers of this property. 16. Notwithstanding my favourable findings in relation to light and the 45-degree code, I conclude on the second main issue that the proposed development would materially reduce the living conditions of the occupiers of No 65. As such, it conflicts with CS Policy ENV2, DBDS Policies S6 and L1, and PGN17 insofar as they aim to safeguard residential amenity. Highway safety 17. The Council’s Highway Engineer states that 3 off road parking spaces would be necessary to serve the appeal dwelling. This level of parking would comply with the advice within the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document, Parking Standards. From what I saw, there is adequate space on the existing forecourt of the appeal dwelling to accommodate 3 family sized vehicles. I note this arrangement would depart from the parking provision shown on the plans that accompanied the original planning permission for the house. 18. There is no parking restriction along Howley Grange Road as it passes the site save for the immediate approach to the vehicular entrance to the primary school on the opposite side of the road to the site. During my early afternoon site visit, I saw that there were plenty of parking spaces available along this highway. My observations are clearly a snapshot and do not relate to evenings, weekends and school pick up and drop off times when the demand for parking spaces is likely to be higher. Even so, I am unable to conclude from the submitted evidence that the proposal would cause or exacerbate local parking problems by significantly adding to on-street parking demand. 19. If no space were available on site, the occupiers of or visitors to the site may decide to park inconsiderately or obstructively on the adjacent road and potentially hinder traffic flow or cause a safety hazard or an inconvenience to others. While that is a possibility, I saw no instances of such behaviour nor have any specific examples of such problems been drawn to my attention. 20. On the third main issue, I conclude that the proposed development would not have an adverse effect on road safety; parking or the free flow of traffic. As such, it does not conflict with the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document, Parking Standards, or CS Policies TRAN2 and S17. These policies note that development should make adequate parking provision and that planning Appeal Decision APP/C4615/D/21/3266817 4 permission will be refused for schemes that are likely to have significant transport implications. Other matters 21. The Council raises additional concern about the level of outdoor amenity space retained to serve the property with the new built form in place, which it considers would be detrimental to the future sustainability of the dwelling. From the information provided, the amount of garden space proposed would exceed the Council’s minimum standard and the outdoor amenity area would be useable for typical activities such as children’s play, drying clothes and sitting out. Whether or not any other extensions or alterations to the appeal property were sustainable would be assessed on their own merits as and when they come forward. 22. The proposal would provide additional living accommodation at ground floor level, which would enhance the living conditions of the appellant. It would also make efficient use of the available space at the rear of the property. These considerations do not outweigh the significant harm that I have identified in relation to the first and second main issues. Conclusion 23. I have found that the proposal would not be safety hazard to users of Howley Grange Road. It would not lead to traffic congestion or an inconvenience other road users. However, my favourable findings on this issue do not outweigh the significant harm caused to the character and appearance of the host building and the local area and on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 65. Consequently, the appeal scheme is not a sustainable form of development. 24. For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Gary Deane INSPECTOR