Erection of a garage to side of existing bungalow

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Appeal Decision Site visit made on 22 October 2018 by David Fitzsimon MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 5TH November 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/C4615/D/18/3210491 157 Landrake Road, Kingswinford DY6 8RT  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 Flatman against the decision of Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council.  The application Ref P18/0720, dated 16 May 2018, was refused by notice dated 26 July 2018.  The development proposed is the erection of a garage to side of existing bungalow. 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 within which it sits. Reasons 3. The appeal relates to an end of terrace bungalow with a distinctive mono-pitch roof to its main body which sits on the corner of Landrake Road and Leaford Way. The three bungalows within the group have a broadly consistent form, even accounting for the fact that one of the flat roof garages attached to the dwellings appears to have been converted to habitable accommodation. 4. The proposal seeks to introduce a single storey garage extension to the side of the dwelling which would be slightly recessed from its front elevation. The monopitch roof of the extension would sit just under, and would fall away from, the tallest part of the monopitch roof of the host dwelling. This would be an uncomfortable arrangement which would not respond well to the scale and form of the host bungalow and the other bungalows within the row. 5. In addition, the proposed extension would occupy a large proportion of the open lawned area at the side of the appeal property which along with the open plan front gardens of the properties on the other side of the junction, makes a noticeable and positive contribution to the spacious character of the immediate locality. It would also sit forward of the broadly consistent ‘building line’ of the dwellings on this side of Leaford Way. Appeal Decision APP/C4615/D/18/3210491 2 6. The proposed extension would be much more substantial and would appear much more prominent within the street scene than the existing fence which encloses the rear garden of the appeal property and is set back from the back of the pavement behind the grass verge. It would detract from the open and spacious character of the junction and it would conflict with the established pattern of development within the immediate area. 7. For these reasons, I find that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the street scene within which it sits. In this respect, it conflicts with policy ENV2 of the adopted Black Country Core Strategy, saved policies DD1 and DD4 of the adopted Dudley Borough Unitary Development Plan and the Council’s adopted Planning Guidance Note No. 17 titled ‘House Extension Design Guide’, which all promote good design that responds well to its surroundings. Other matters 8. The appellants refer to other developments within the local area. Whilst I do not know the precise planning circumstances behind the examples highlighted, I have considered the appeal proposal on its individual merits and against the context of the particular street scene within which it would sit. 9. I appreciate that the proposed extension would enable the installation of solar panels on the south side of the bungalow, which is not currently feasible due to the existing mono-pitch roof facing due north. I also note that the proposal would not result in the loss of any private car parking spaces. Nevertheless, these factors do not outweigh the harm I have identified. Overall Conclusion 10. I conclude that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the street scene within which it sits, contrary to the development plan policies and design guidance referred to above. The arguments advanced by the appellants do not outweigh this harm or policy conflict therefore the appeal does not succeed. David Fitzsimon INSPECTOR