Loft conversion with dormers an existing hip roof changed to gables and single storey kitchen and utility extension, boundary treatment with brick pier and infill timber panels, railing and wall and gates along Tudor Crescent

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 15 December 2025 by T Morris BA (Hons) MSc Decision by F Harrison BA (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 03 March 2026. Appeal Ref: 6001207 2 Rookery Lane, Penn, Wolverhampton WV2 4PU • 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 Miss Elizabeth Summan against the decision of Wolverhampton City Council. • The application Ref is 25/00227/FUL. • The development proposed is a loft conversion with dormers an existing hip roof changed to gables and single storey kitchen and utility extension, boundary treatment with brick pier and infill timber panels, railing and wall and gates along Tudor Crescent. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal Procedure 2. The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal. Main Issues 3. The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: i) the character and appearance of the surrounding area, including the appeal property; ii) the living conditions of occupiers of 4 Rookery Lane, in terms of outlook, light and privacy; and iii) highway safety. Reasons for the Recommendation Character and appearance 4. The appeal site comprises a detached bungalow which is prominently sited at the junction of Rookery Lane and Tudor Crescent. The area is predominantly residential in character and features dwellings which have a varied design and appearance. However, the similarity in the general scale of the built form creates a sense of balance and a harmonious character and appearance. Where the frontages of dwellings in the area feature boundary walls, these are mostly low in height which contributes to an open character in the street scene. Where boundary treatments are taller, they are generally in the form of hedges which adds to a verdant feel in the area. Appeal Decision 6001207 2 5. The maximum height of the appeal property would not be altered, however the proposed hip to gable conversion on both sides would significantly increase the overall mass of the roof and the dwelling as a whole. The proposed roof design would eradicate the dwelling’s distinctive broken-up roof form, and the additional mass at roof level would give the bungalow a bulky appearance. Furthermore, the part gable section above the existing porch would appear excessively tall compared to the porch and would be an incongruous feature which would detract from the visual coherence of the dwelling. 6. The materials for the proposed boundary treatment have been chosen for their durability, however due to its height and its mostly solid design, it would harmfully contrast with the majority of front boundary treatments in the area. Although the metal railings to the Tudor Crescent frontage would provide some sense of openness, the brick piers and the timber infill panels would form an excessively tall and solid feature particularly on the Rookery Lane frontage. 7. In coming to this conclusion, I have had regard of the examples of other walls in the area, including the notable brick wall on the opposite side of Rookery Lane. However, that brick wall is a clear visual anomaly in the street scene which does not reflect the general appearance of boundaries in the area, and there is limited detail of the location of the other examples and so it is not clear that they are comparable to the appeal scheme. Consequently, the other examples do not lead me away from my above findings. The site is not subject to heritage constraints or restricted by an Article 4 Direction. Even so, the property is prominent in the street scene being located at a corner plot. In any case, a lack of such designations does not obviate the need for an appropriate design which enhances local character, as is required by the development plan. 8. Overall, the proposal would unbalance the prevailing character and appearance of the area, and in doing so would be contrary to the guidance in the Extension to Houses Supplementary Planning Guidance No 4 (1996) which advises that extensions should be of a similar architectural character, style, in scale and detailing as the existing house and sympathetic to the character of the area. It also advises that the roof shape of an extension should ideally be the same as the existing roof which would not be the case with the appeal scheme. The proposal would also not deliver a high-quality place as required by the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). 9. I therefore conclude that the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding area, including the appeal property. It would be in conflict with Policies CSP4 and ENV3 of the Black Country Core Strategy (2011) (BCCS) and Policies D3, D4, D5, D6, D7, D8 and D9 of the Wolverhampton Unitary Development Plan (2006) (UDP). Amongst other matters, these policies require that developments are attractive and of a high-quality design which is influenced by the context and enhances local character. Living conditions 10. The side elevation of 4 Rookery Lane which faces the rear elevation of the appeal property contains several windows, including a kitchen window at the ground floor. I observed the outlook from this window to be partly narrowed due to the proximity to No 2. For the same reason and given the orientation of No 4, this window also has reduced daylight and sunlight. Appeal Decision 6001207 3 11. Due to the proposed additional mass of the roof of the appeal property together with the proximity to No 4, the proposal would appear notably more overbearing from their kitchen window when compared to the existing situation. Similarly, the additional bulk of the roof would inevitably increase the overshadowing of the kitchen window, particularly during the evening hours in the summer, and this would compound the harm to the living conditions of occupiers of No 4. 12. The proposed dormer window would face the side elevation of No 4, however, it would be sited close to the existing chimney stack at the appeal property and set away from No 4’s ground floor kitchen window. As such, whilst it might be possible to see into the kitchen window from the bedroom which the dormer window would serve, this would be from an oblique angle only. In these circumstances, it would not result in an unacceptable loss of privacy. 13. Therefore, although I have found that the proposal would not be harmful to the living conditions of occupiers of No 4 in terms of privacy, it would be harmful to their living conditions in terms of outlook and light. It would be in conflict with Policy D8 of the UDP which includes a requirement for development to not adversely affect people’s amenity in respect of immediate outlook and loss of daylight and sunlight. Highway safety 14. The vehicular access to the site is provided from a single existing footway crossing off Tudor Crescent which is a quiet residential cul-de-sac. However, I observed Rookery Lane to be a reasonably busy road which connects to the A-roads of Penn Lane and Goldthorn Hill nearby. The erection of the proposed gates would interfere with any vehicles accessing the site, which is currently open without any obstructions along the boundary to the footpath. This could result in vehicles waiting on the road or on the footpath whilst the gates open in proximity to the junction of Rookery Lane and Tudor Crescent, and at a section of Tudor Crescent where there is a bend in the road which restricts the visibility of vehicles on approach to Rookery Lane. 15. In these circumstances, the risk of collision would increase between vehicles approaching the site in either direction, and vehicles accessing the site that may be waiting for the gates to open. Moreover, there is no substantiated evidence that cars would be able to easily manoeuvre into the narrow driveway and so I cannot be confident that the occupies would not park on the footpath for convenience which would increase conflict between pedestrians and vehicles and would not prioritise pedestrian movement as required by the Framework. 16. To conclude, the proposal would have a harmful effect on highway safety. It would be in conflict with Policies D3 and AM15 of the UDP, insofar as they require that developments are designed and implemented to contribute towards improving road safety and that streets should be designed to encourage safer walking. Other Consideration 17. The appellant refers to permitted development rights and indicates that 50 cubic metres of additional roof space could be constructed at the appeal property, and this is a fallback position. However, no further details are before me and without such information a full and detailed comparison with the appeal scheme cannot be made. It is also not possible to ascertain if it would be a realistic or probable Appeal Decision 6001207 4 alternative and if prior approval would be given. Consequently, the suggested fallback position has limited weight in the determination of the appeal. Conclusion and Recommendation 18. The proposed development would be in conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no other material considerations which would outweigh this conflict. I therefore recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. T Morris APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 19. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. F Harrison INSPECTOR