House Remodel, 2 X Side (Porch & Garage) and Front Elevation Extension, First Floor Removed and New Dormer Roof

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 11 December 2025 by Hannah Guest BSc (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 23 January 2026. Appeal Ref: 6000826 71 Moss Grove, Kingswinford, Dudley, DY6 9HD • 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 and Mrs Round against the decision of Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council. • The application Ref is P25/0460. • The development proposed is described as “House Remodel, 2 X Side (Porch & Garage) and Front Elevation Extension, First Floor Removed and New Dormer Roof. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling, its significance as a non-designated heritage asset, and the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Reasons 3. The appeal property is a detached, two-storey brick-built dwelling with a mixed hipped and gabled roof form and three brick chimney stacks. It includes a two-storey bay window fronting Moss Grove. 4. The proposal would substantially alter the established character and appearance of the host dwelling. It would not retain the existing height, width or depth of the dwelling or maintain its proportions, contrary to the advice set out in the Dudley Council Residential Design Guide (2023). Key positive features, such as its roof form, chimney stacks and bay window would also be removed. 5. Although it may be that some of these alterations fall within permitted development, the cumulative changes to the scale, form and design of the house would remove any legibility of the host dwelling. This would not be meaningfully mitigated by the re-use of the bricks and tiles, or the control of external materials by condition. The proposal would therefore have a detrimental impact on the character, form and design of the host dwelling, contrary to Policy L1 of the Dudley Borough Development Strategy (Development Strategy) and would result in substantial harm in this regard. 6. The appeal property is identified in the Historic Environment Record as part of the former Kingswinford Gas Works. Previously thought to be the manager’s house, the record notes that it represents one of the only surviving historic features of the Appeal Decision 6000826 2 gasworks. As such, the Council considers the building a non-designated heritage asset (NDHA). 7. I saw on my visit that the appeal property retains some attractive external features, including its roof profile, chimney stacks, fenestration pattern and traditional rainwater goods. While some features have deteriorated and others have been replaced with modern alternatives, the dwelling still exhibits architectural interest as a high-quality house of its period. This is not disputed by the appellant. 8. The property also holds some historic interest as the former gas manager’s house. However, as the gasworks have now been decommissioned and redeveloped for housing, the degree of historic interest is limited. 9. Paragraph 216 of the National Planning Policy Framework states the effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that directly or indirectly affect non-designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset. 10. From the evidence before me and my observations of site, I am of the view that overall, the significance of the appeal property as a NDHA is limited. Therefore, although the proposal would result in the loss of this significance, the level of harm arising from the loss would be minimal. 11. Notwithstanding this, the distinctive character and appearance of the appeal property make a positive contribution to the street-scene. I saw on my visit that, as a historic, detached house on a large plot, it stands out from its immediate neighbours. Nonetheless, while noticeably different from the more modern houses surrounding it, it is not intrusive. As a building of some historic distinction, its prominent corner plot is appropriate and benefits from its presence. Furthermore, its contribution is not diminished to any significant degree by the close board fencing and lack of greenery within the plot. 12. The house resulting from the proposal would be of a scale and design broadly comparable to neighbouring properties and would sit comfortably within the plot. However, although it would not appear out of keeping with surrounding development, it would lack the distinctiveness and presence of the appeal property. It would not capitalise on its prominent corner position and would make a reduced contribution to the street-scene. Given this, the proposal would result in some limited harm to the character of the surrounding area, albeit this would be localised. While only limited, this harm would not be fully mitigated by a landscaping scheme. 13. Accordingly, the proposal would conflict with Policy ENV2 of the Black Country Core Strategy (Core Strategy) and Policy S8 of the Development Strategy, which seek to preserve the local character and distinctiveness of the Borough’s townscape by retaining assets that positively contribute to it. 14. Nonetheless, given the proposal would be broadly in keeping with the character and appearance of the wider area, it would accord with Policy ENV3 of the Core Strategy and Policy S6 of the Development Strategy, which seek to ensure that development delivers proposals that reflect the character and/or visual amenities of the local area. Appeal Decision 6000826 3 Planning Balance and Conclusion 15. Although I have found that the loss of the appeal property’s significance as a NDHA would only amount to minimal harm, the proposal would nevertheless cause substantial harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling, and limited, localised harm to the character of the wider area. 16. The appellant highlights the appeal property’s poor condition, asserting that it is uninhabitable, at risk of further decline, and that a structural report indicates compromised structural integrity. 17. While I accept that the proposal would facilitate the appeal property’s return to residential use, I have not been provided with the structural report, nor any substantive evidence to demonstrate that the proposal is the only viable means of securing its future. I can therefore only afford moderate weight to the benefits of bringing the property back into use. These moderate benefits would not outweigh the harm I have identified. 18. The proposal would conflict with the development plan, read as a whole. It has not been demonstrated that there are any material considerations of sufficient weight to indicate that a decision should be taken otherwise than in accordance with it. The appeal is therefore dismissed. Hannah Guest INSPECTOR