TWO STOREY FRONT EXTENSION, SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION & REAR FIRST FLOOR DORMER EXTENSION

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 27 November 2025 by Alexander O’Doherty LLB (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 10 December 2025 Appeal Ref: 6000746 22 Daffodil Road, Walsall WS5 3DQ • 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 S Mahmood against the decision of Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council. • The application Ref is 25/0549. • The development proposed is described on the application form as, “TWO STOREY FRONT EXTENSION, SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION & REAR FIRST FLOOR DORMER EXTENSION”. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. The appellant has requested an opportunity to revise the scheme. The Procedural Guide: Planning appeals - England states that the appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme, and that it is important that what is considered by the Inspector at appeal is essentially the same scheme that was considered by the Local Planning Authority and by interested parties at the application stage. Moreover, no revised plans have been submitted. I have therefore considered the same plans that the Council determined the planning application on. 3. The Council’s 2nd reason for refusal in the decision notice referred to alleged inaccuracies in the submitted plans. For the avoidance of doubt, I have determined the appeal on the basis of the information before me (which includes scaled plans), and what I saw on site. Main Issue 4. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 5. The appeal site comprises 22 Daffodil Road (No 22), a semi-detached dwelling with accommodation in its roof space. It incorporates a distinctive front cat-slide roof, as does the other half of the semi-detached pair of which it forms a part, 24 Daffodil Road (No 24). Apart from a limited number of other uses, including buildings in commercial use, the local area is predominantly residential in nature. 6. The dwellings on the opposite side of Daffodil Road exhibit a broadly consistent front building line. The front projections present on dwellings on Furze Way, Appeal Decision 6000746 2 highlighted by the appellant1, do not protrude significantly from their host properties, and these projections all protrude from their host properties by a similar extent. 7. However, the semi-detached pair comprising 18 Daffodil Road (No 18) and 20 Daffodil Road (No 20) sit forward of the semi-detached pair comprising Nos 22 and 24, meaning that the front building line between these 2 pairs of semi-detached dwellings is noticeably staggered. Nevertheless, I observed that, projections on one half of a semi-detached pair in the locality tend to be closely mirrored by similar projections on the other half. In other words, these projections do not extend significantly past the forwardmost walls of the adjoining dwelling. This includes those projections highlighted by the appellant on Furze Way. 8. The proposed 2-storey front extension would project significantly beyond the front elevations of both Nos 22 and 24. Furthermore, the forwardmost element of the 2- storey front extension would span across a considerable proportion of No 22’s front elevation, and its roof would rise up to No 22’s ridge. Accordingly, although it would have a similar visual style to some other nearby projections (including those on Furze Way and the front projection at No 20), it would nevertheless constitute an addition of significant bulk and massing. 9. Hence, whilst this element of the proposed development would closely align with the maximum extent of the front projection present at No 20, No 22 would no longer be reflective of No 24. Consequently, the proposed 2-storey front extension would visually imbalance the semi-detached pair of which No 22 forms a part, thereby disrupting the pair’s positive contribution to the street scene. Harm to the character and appearance of the area would result. 10. I therefore find that the proposed development would have an unacceptable and harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. It would conflict with part I. of Policy GP2 of the Walsall Unitary Development Plan (adopted 2005) (UDP) which lists visual appearance as a matter to be taken into account in terms of environmental protection, and with Policy ENV32 of the UDP which provides that, amongst other things, poorly designed development or proposals which fail to properly take account of the context or surroundings will not be permitted. 11. The proposed development would also conflict with Policies CSP4, ENV2, and ENV3 of the Black Country Core Strategy (adopted 2011), which collectively seek to, amongst other things, preserve and, where appropriate, enhance local character. Other Matters 12. The conduct of the Council during the processing of the planning application is not a matter that I can assess in the context of a planning appeal. Conclusion 13. The proposed development as a whole would enlarge the available accommodation on site. However, as this would mainly comprise a private rather than a public benefit, this matter merits little weight in favour of the proposed development. Overall, none of the relevant material considerations indicate that 1 Appendix A (streetscene) of the Appeal Statement Appeal Decision 6000746 3 this appeal should be decided otherwise than in accordance with the development plan. 14. For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole, the approach in the National Planning Policy Framework, and all other relevant material considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Alexander O’Doherty INSPECTOR