For a ground floor side and rear extension following application P25/0529/PNA

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 17 December 2025 by S Ramsden BSc (Hons) MA MA IHBC an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 19 January 2026 Appeal Ref: 6001696 19 Suffolk Road, Dudley DY2 0UJ • 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 Manzar Bashir against the decision of Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council. • The application reference is P25/0741. • The development proposed is for a ground floor side and rear extension following application P25/0529/PNA. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of a ground floor side and rear extension following application P25/0529/PNA, at 19 Suffolk Road, Dudley DY2 0UJ in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref. P25/0741, 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 external materials of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling. 3) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos. 19SR/001-2025 and 19SR/002-2025. Preliminary Matters 2. The original application was made for a side and rear extension with a flat roof (drawing no. 19SR/002-2025). An amended drawing showing the extension with a pitched roof (no. 19SR/002-2025. Rev. A) was submitted to the Council on 29 August 2025; however, the application was refused on 2 September 2025, based on the original drawings showing the extension with a flat roof. 3. The amended drawing represents a material alteration to the original application and has not been subject to public consultation. It was not the subject of the decision notice and I have, therefore, determined the appeal based on the drawing originally submitted with the application (no. 19SR/002-2025). 4. The appeal site was the subject of an application for prior notification (ref. P25/0529/PNA) for a single storey rear extension, extending the full width of the dwelling and of comparable depth to the development subject of this appeal. The Council confirmed (Decision dated 10 June 2025) that prior approval was not required subject to the external materials used being of similar appearance to those of the existing dwelling. Where the development accords with that application I have taken this into account as a material consideration. Appeal Decision 6001696 2 Main Issues 5. The main issues are: • The effect of the development on the character and appearance of the appeal site and the surrounding area; and • The effect of the proposed rear extension on the living conditions of the occupants of 17 and 21 Suffolk Road. Reasons Character and appearance 6. The appeal site is a brick built semi-detached property, paired with 21 Suffolk Road (No 21). In common with other properties in the area there is limited separation between pairs of semi-detached properties, with 17 and 19 Suffolk Road (Nos 17 and 19) being separated by narrow footpaths, to each side of the shared boundary. To the front elevation the two houses are linked by a single storey screen wall, with doorways giving access to the side paths and rear gardens beyond. Each house has a single storey brick built outbuilding immediately to the rear of the house in the rear garden. 7. The appeal site is within an established residential area, comprising similar semi- detached properties built to consistent building lines, with similar spacings between comparable pairs linked by screen walls. 8. To the rear, the proposed extension would occupy the full width of the site, to a depth of approximately 4.55m. The furthest extent of the footprint of the development would include the area currently occupied by the brick outbuilding, which would be demolished. To the side, the proposed development would infill the space currently occupied by the narrow pathway. The front screen wall and doorway would be replaced by a slightly higher brick wall, with a small window in place of the doorway. 9. Due to the limited separation between Nos 17 and 19, and the linking screen wall to the front elevation, the development would have a limited impact on the immediate street scene and character of the wider area. 10. Although the extension to the rear would be wider than that of the position established under the prior notification application, its impact on the host dwelling would not be significantly different. This remains the case even allowing for the addition of the narrow side extension. 11. For the above reasons, and having regard to relevant material considerations, I conclude that the proposed extension would not have an unacceptable harmful effect on the character and appearance of the appeal site and the surrounding area. Accordingly, I find no conflict with the Council’s Residential Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document, (the SPD) 2023, Policy ENV2 of the Black Country Core Strategy, 2011, and Policies S6, S8 and L1 of the Dudley Borough Development Strategy, (the Strategy) 2017. Living conditions 12. The extension to the rear of the property projects approximately 4.55m from the rear building line and to the full width of the appeal site. It has the potential to Appeal Decision 6001696 3 impact on the living conditions of the occupants of 17 and 21 Suffolk Road, through impacts on outlook, overshadowing and loss of light. 13. The impact of the rear extension on the occupants of No 21 would be the same as that of the position established under the prior notification application for an extension of comparable depth. 14. On the shared boundary with No 17 the proposed extension would extend to around the same building line of the existing single storey outbuilding. The outlook from, and levels of light to, the window of the closest habitable room of No 17 are already impacted on by the close proximity of the brick outbuilding to the rear of that property and by the corresponding outbuilding, at a slightly higher level, to No 19. 15. Although the proposed development would cross the line of the 45 degree code advocated in the SPD, with regards to the window at No 17, this line is already broken by the existing outbuildings. Notwithstanding the difference in levels between Nos 17 and 19, the proposed extension would not make an appreciable difference to the current outlook from, and levels of light to, the windows of habitable rooms of No 17. 16. The rear elevations of the dwellings are south facing, and the appeal site is to the west of No 17; therefore, any additional overshadowing would be of limited duration. Along with any potential visually overbearing impact, such impacts would be limited to the small yard area, between No 17 and its outbuilding, or to the path to the side of the property. Neither are outdoor spaces which might be expected to be in frequent and prolonged usage, and the development would not therefore have an unacceptable impact on the living conditions of the occupants of No 17 in this regard. 17. For these reasons, and having regard to relevant material considerations, I conclude that the proposed extension would not cause material harm to the living conditions of the occupants of 17 and 21 Suffolk Road. Accordingly, I do not find conflict with the SPD or Policy L1 of the Strategy. Conditions 18. In addition to the standard time condition, I have imposed a condition requiring that the development is carried out following the approved plans, for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of certainty. I have also imposed a condition requiring materials to match those used on the existing dwelling in order to maintain the character and appearance of the area. Conclusion 19. For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole, along with other relevant material considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed subject to conditions. S Ramsden INSPECTOR