2 Storey Side, Front & Rear Extension, part Single Storey Rear Extension, New Raised Pitched Roof incorporating Loft Conversion, Dormer Window & Roof Lights together with new steps to the rear

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 11 March 2026 by N Bromley BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 18 March 2026 Appeal Ref: 6001937 9 Beckman Road, Pedmore, Dudley DY9 0UA • 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. Adeel Razaq against the decision of Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council. • The application Ref is P25/0570. • The development proposed is 2 Storey Side, Front & Rear Extension, part Single Storey Rear Extension, New Raised Pitched Roof incorporating Loft Conversion, Dormer Window & Roof Lights together with new steps to the rear. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues are: • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property and the area; • the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers of 7 and 11 Beckman Road, with regard to outlook and loss of light; • whether the proposals would provide appropriate living conditions for the occupiers of the host property, with regard to outlook from proposed windows; and • the effect of the proposed development on highway safety, with regard to parking arrangements. Reasons Character and appearance 3. The appeal site comprises a detached, two storey dwelling located within a quiet suburban residential area. The house is set within a row of residential properties that front the road, which are tightly spaced together. The property benefits from a frontage parking area, and a long and sizeable rear garden. 4. Existing properties within the immediate street scene are similarly large. Many of the houses have been extended, which contributes to the varied design of houses along the road and within the locality. In particular, there are a range of design Appeal Decision 6001937 2 features, including window styles, that add visual interest to the dwellings, and variety to the appearance of the street scene. 5. The proposed extensions would be large, extending to the front, side and rear, primarily with a two-storey height. The ridge height of the original dwelling would also be raised, with a dormer window proposed in the rear roof slope. As a consequence, the proposed extensions would alter the appearance and scale of the original dwelling. 6. Notably, a two-storey gable feature, which includes a large expanse of powder coated aluminium curtain walling, would dominate the front elevation of the dwelling. While this design feature could be said to be innovative, it is not a feature replicated on other properties nearby, or comparable to window features of the other properties within the street. 7. The front elevation and the aluminium curtain walling design feature would be visible from various vantage points along the road. It would be particularly prominent and stark from St. Peter’s Road opposite, and as suggested by the appellant, this element of the scheme would not benefit from a fallback position should the application be refused. 8. Due to the prominent location of the front extension, and its size, which would be exacerbated by the dominant and uncharacteristic appearance of the powder coated aluminium curtain walling, the proposed front extension would be incongruous. Even in the context of the varied design of houses within the street scene. As such, this element of the appeal scheme would be harmful to the street scene, and it would also harm the appearance of the original dwelling. 9. Given the location of the part two storey and part single storey rear extension, and the dormer window at the rear of the property, those elements of the appeal scheme would have limited views from the road. With matching facing materials, and appropriate fenestration, despite the large size of the proposed rear extensions and additions, they would not result in visual harm to the dwelling or the visual amenity of the area. 10. Overall, for the above reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would be unacceptably harmful to the character and appearance of the host property and the area. It would therefore conflict with Policies L1 and S6 of the Dudley Borough Development Strategy 2017 (the DS), which together, amongst other things, seek to ensure high quality design which protects local distinctiveness and the character and appearance of the area. Living conditions of neighbouring occupiers 11. The proposed rear extension would be a large addition to the host property, which would extend up to the shared side boundary with 7 Beckman Road (No 7) and 11 Beckman Road (No 11). 12. Land levels at the rear of the appeal property slope down from the rear elevation to the rear boundary, as they do at No 7 and No 11. Many of the properties within the row of houses have been extended at the rear and include a range of additions, extensions and outbuildings, which vary in scale, form and appearance. 13. No 11 has a ground floor window / set of double doors (the opening) in its rear elevation which serves a habitable room. The opening is accessed off a raised Appeal Decision 6001937 3 decking area that provides access from the side of the property, close to the shared boundary. The opening is set off the boundary. 14. Due to the juxtaposition of the proposed two storey part of the rear extension with No 11, as well as its limited projection out from the rear elevation of the original building, the proposals would not unacceptably harm the outlook from the opening. 15. Likewise, and for similar reasons to those given above, while the proposed extension is large, I am not persuaded that the rear aspects of the proposal would ‘loom’ over the neighbouring properties to the extent that it would be overbearing or harm the outlook from the rear gardens. Indeed, the rear gardens are spacious, with similar land levels to the appeal property, which would also limit the effect of the proposal on neighbouring living conditions. 16. In addition, the orientation of the proposed extension, despite its scale, would also ensure that a significant level of overshadowing would not be caused to neighbouring gardens and habitable windows. 17. Consequently, for the reasons given, I conclude that the proposed development would not cause unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers of 7 and 11 Beckman Road, with regard to outlook and loss of light. As such, the proposal would not conflict with Policy L1 of the DS, which seeks, amongst other things, development that is appropriate for the locality that would not unacceptably harm the amenities of neighbouring properties. Living conditions of the occupiers of the host property 18. Two bedrooms are proposed in the roof space. Bedroom 4 would benefit from a large dormer window within the roof space. However, bedroom 5 would not benefit from a window. Instead, the proposed bedroom would only be served by rooflights. 19. Even though rooflights do not provide a desirable outlook, I am mindful that all other bedrooms and habitable windows of the property would have a window that would provide an outlook. Within this context and overall, the proposals would provide appropriate living conditions for the occupiers of the host property, with regard to outlook from proposed windows. Accordingly, I conclude that the proposal would comply with Policy L1 of the DS, which seeks, amongst other things, an appropriate level of amenity for future occupiers of the development. Parking 20. As a suburban residential street, the road is quiet. Many of the houses have off road frontage parking and garages. As does the host property, which has space on the site frontage for at least two vehicles to park. The property also benefits from an integral garage, but it is narrow and unlikely to provide space for parking a vehicle. 21. The existing house has five bedrooms. With the study and laundry, the proposal would result in a house with seven bedrooms. As such, parking demand on the front would be increased. 22. The proposals would increase parking provision on the site frontage, but the additional space is shown to be on an angle. Even so, there is no reason to doubt that three perpendicular spaces to the road could not be created, and a suitably worded planning condition could secure three spaces prior to the occupation of the proposals. Appeal Decision 6001937 4 23. Even if the proposal did result in a demand for one additional parking space, as assumed by the Council’s Parking Standards Supplementary Planning Document, Adoption September 2017, there is an ability to park on the road near to the property. Indeed, I observed during my site visit that there was a good level of on street parking availability close to the appeal property. Likewise, while located next to the junction with St. Peter’s Road, an additional vehicle could park clear of the road junction without causing an obstruction to other vehicles. As such, there is no substantive evidence before me which demonstrates that a shortfall of one parking space would cause a significant highway safety impact. 24. For the reasons outlined above, I conclude that the proposed development would not cause an unacceptable impact on highway safety, with regard to parking. Therefore, it would not conflict with Policy L1 of the DS, which amongst other things, seeks to ensure an adequate amount of off-street parking provision, to prevent detrimental impacts on highway safety. Other Matters 25. The proposed development could be constructed to adhere with building regulations and be energy efficient. The redevelopment and adaptation of the property would also enable the extended family of the appellant to stay in the property, which would ensure the long-term stewardship of the family home. However, these benefits would not outweigh the harm caused by the impact of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area. Conclusion 26. I conclude that the proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no material considerations that indicate that the development should be determined otherwise than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed. N Bromley INSPECTOR