To retain roller shutter at the rear of the property via a shared drive

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 23 November 2018 by Gary Deane BSc (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 3rd December 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/G4620/D/18/3211771 128 Norman Road, Smethwick, Birmingham B67 5NT • 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 Wasim Ulhaq against the decision of Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council. • The application Ref DC/18/61965 was refused by notice dated 15 August 2018. • The development proposed is to retain roller shutter at the rear of the property via a shared drive. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural matter 2. The development sought is in place. It is as shown on the submitted photographs. Main issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the local area. Reasons 4. The appeal property is a semi-detached house in a predominantly residential area. The development sought is an external roller shutter with shutter box above, both finished in black metal. The roller shutter spans the gap between the rear of the main house and the garage beyond the back of the dwelling. When closed, the roller shutter partly encloses the rear garden of No 128. 5. I note that the Company that installed the development has fitted many such features to residential properties with no issues raised by the relevant Council. In this case, the roller shutter is set back from the flank wall of the host building and so it is not readily evident from the road. It is, however, visible from the driveway of No 128, which is shared with the adjacent house, and the rear garden of the appeal property. From these particular vantage points, the roller shutter has an uncompromisingly solid presence and a harsh appearance primarily due to the considerable expanse of sheet metal. As a result, it is obtrusive. When the roller shutter is open, the shutter box above would also draw the eye as a large and bulky feature. 6. Along Norman Road, I saw that some residential properties include security features such as alarms although none had a roller shutter or a feature that Appeal Decision APP/G4620/D/18/3211771 2 was similar in design or scale. As the only obvious example of such development in the area around the site, the appeal scheme is an incongruous addition. It looks out of place in its suburban residential setting. The harmful impact could not be satisfactorily mitigated by modifications such as the colour of the roller shutter or the position of the shutter box. 7. On the main issue, I conclude that the development causes significant harm to the character and appearance of the local area. As such, it conflicts with Policy ENV3 of the Black Country Core Strategy and Policy SAD EOS 9. These policies aim to ensure that new development achieves high quality design and note that the Council will reject proposals that are inappropriate for their locality. 8. The appellant states that he was unaware that the development required planning permission. I also note that an outdoor building previously occupied the space taken up by the roller shutter that was taller than the development. Even so, few details have been provided of this previous building and so I am unable to directly compare the development with it. While the appellant states that neighbours raised no objection, a representation by an interested party was received by the Council, which I have taken into account. 9. That the roller shutter has improved the security for the occupiers of No 128 and created a safe space to the rear of the property to store vehicles and their contents is in little doubt. Taking responsibility to deter acts of theft and trespass is understandable especially given the recent instances of break ins at the property. Such occasions can be very unsettling. These are important matters in support of the appeal. However, these considerations do not outweigh the significant harm that I have identified. Conclusion 10. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Gary Deane INSPECTOR