Construction of detached garage, boundary wall and conversion of existing garage into another room

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 25 November 2025 by N Bromley BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 9 December 2025 Appeal Ref: 6000674 93 Greyhound Lane, Norton, Dudley DY8 3AD • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr. James Evitts against the decision of Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council. • The application Ref is P25/0739. • The development proposed is construction of detached garage, boundary wall and conversion of existing garage into another room. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for construction of detached garage, boundary wall and conversion of existing garage into another room at 93 Greyhound Lane, Norton, Dudley DY8 3AD in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref P25/0739, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing numbers: WCL-JG-GL-002; WCL-JG-GL-003; WCL-JG-GL-004; WCL-JG-GL-005; WCL-JG-GL-006 and WCL-JG-GL-007. 3) Notwithstanding the facing materials detailed on the approved plans, no development above ground level shall take place until details / samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details / samples. Main Issue 2. The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 3. The appeal site comprises a two-storey detached dwelling, located at the end of a row of properties set back off Greyhound Lane. The properties are elevated above the main road and are accessed via a separate, shared road. 4. The appeal property occupies a spacious plot at the end of the shared road and is largely screened from the main road by dense vegetation and trees, as are the Appeal Decision 6000674 2 other properties along the shared road. The appeal property has a driveway and parking area to the front, which provides access to an integral garage. 5. Despite the proposed garage being a sizeable building, and located to the front of the house, it would be viewed within the context of the existing dwelling. The orientation of the proposal and its form and appearance, as well as its juxtaposition with the main house, would temper its effect within the street scene. It would also add some symmetry along the road with a detached garage located in a similar position at the opposite end of the row of properties. 6. In addition, the dense vegetation between the shared road and the main road would ensure that the proposal is not prominent from wider public vantage points. As such, although the appellant suggests that a Cherry Laurel screening hedge could be planted next to the proposed garage, I am satisfied that it is not necessary because existing vegetation and trees would provide adequate screening of the building from the wider area. 7. While the proposed timber cladding to the external walls would soften the appearance of the proposal, timber buildings are not prevalent in the area. Indeed, the houses along the road are of a brick construction, as is the detached garage at the opposite end of the street. Within this context, I am not persuaded that the use of timber cladding is appropriate. Nevertheless, and notwithstanding the appellants comments about potential problems securing a suitable brick match with the main house, a suitably worded planning condition would secure the prior approval of appropriate facing and roofing materials for the proposed development. 8. The elevational changes to the main house and the new, small boundary wall at the front would be subtle additions which would not be visually harmful, within the context of the house and this residential area. The materials condition would also ensure that these elements of the scheme have an acceptable appearance. As such, a condition would be reasonable and necessary. 9. For the reasons outlined above, I conclude that the proposed development would not unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the area. As such, the proposal would accord with Policies ENV2 and ENV3 of the Black Country Core Strategy (2011), and Policies L1 and S6 of the Dudley Borough Development Strategy (2017), which together, amongst other things, seek to ensure high quality design which protects local distinctiveness and the character and appearance of the area. Conditions 10. In addition to the conditions set out in the main issue, and the standard time limit condition, I have also, in the interests of certainty, attached a condition specifying the approved plans. Conclusion 11. For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed. N Bromley INSPECTOR