Two storey side extension

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Appeal Decision Site visit made on 17 July 2018 by David Fitzsimon MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 23 July 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/D4635/D/18/3203336 124 Blackhalve Lane, Wolverhampton WV11 1AA  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 & Mrs M Keane against the decision of Wolverhampton City Council.  The application Ref 18/00054/FUL, dated 9 January 2018, was refused by notice dated 7 March 2018.  The development proposed is a two storey side extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the street scene. Reasons 3. The appeal relates to a modest semi-detached dwelling which sits on the corner of Blackhalve Lane and Blackwood Avenue. The two storey extension proposed would effectively pull out the existing gable end of the host dwelling by about 3 metres closer to the side boundary. With the same ridge height and no recess from the main front elevation, the extension would not appear subservient to the host dwelling. As a result, and even accounting for presence of the attached garage at No. 126 Blackhalve Lane, the proposed extension would imbalance the general form of this pair of semi-detached houses. The effect would be visually harmful and whilst the appellants have suggested that the first floor could be recessed, I must consider the scheme as presented to me. 4. Further, the proposed extension would project well beyond the established building line of the nearest of the dwellings of Blackwood Avenue. The recessed and broadly consistent positioning of these dwellings is noticeable and makes a positive contribution to the general spaciousness at the junction of these two highways. This would be harmfully disrupted if the proposed extension was built and landscaping would not provide adequate mitigation. 5. For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposed extension would not be a subservient addition to the host dwelling, the relationship with the attached Appeal Decision APP/D4635/D/18/3203336 2 dwelling would be imbalanced as a consequence and its siting would not respond well to the existing pattern of development within the immediate area. 6. As a result, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and its setting within the street scene. In such terms, it conflicts with policy ENV3 of the adopted Black Country Core Strategy, policies D4, D7, D8 and D9 of the adopted Wolverhampton Unitary Development Plan and the Council’s adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance Note 4 titled ‘Extension to Houses’; all of which promote good design and seek to ensure that development responds well to its surroundings. 7. The appellants have referred to several extensions within the local area. I do not know the precise planning circumstances behind these examples but the closest, No. 120 Blackhalve Lane, is not comparable because this extension has a lower ridge height than the host dwelling, its first floor element is recessed from the main front elevation and it does not sit on a corner plot. In any event, I have considered the proposal before me on its merits and against the specific context within which it would sit. 8. In light of the above factors, and having considered all other matters raised, the appeal does not succeed. David Fitzsimon INSPECTOR