Proposed first floor side extension and canopy to front over existing garage

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 11 June 2026 by Eleni Marshall BSc (hons) MSc FRICS FAAV MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 16 June 2026 Appeal Ref: 6009168 16 Hamilton Drive, Tividale, Oldbury, B69 3JS • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Loveline Ngum Sanuh-Etongwe against Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council. • The application Ref is DC/26/71470. • The development proposed is proposed first floor side extension and canopy to front over existing garage. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for a first-floor side extension and canopy to front over existing garage at 16 Hamilton Drive, Tividale, Oldbury, B69 3JS Ref: DC/26/71470 and the plans submitted with it subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission; 2) The development hereby permitted shall be maintained in accordance with the following approved plans: 2026-02-B69 3JS drawing no. 01 Rev A, 2026-02- B69 3JS drawing no. 06 Rev A, 2026-02-B69 3JS drawing no. 07 Rev A, 2026- 02-B69 3JS drawing no. 08 Rev A and 2026-02-B69 3JS drawing no. 09 Rev A; 3) The external materials of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling; 4) The extension hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the first-floor side window (serving the ensuite – shown as obscured on the approved elevation drawings) has been fitted with obscured glazing and no part of that window, below 1.7m from floor level, shall be capable of being opened. The window shall be maintained as such for the lifetime of the development. Procedural Matters 2. I have utilised the Council’s description of the proposal as I find it describes the proposal more concisely. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the design of the proposal, and the impact upon neighbouring residential amenity, due to not complying with required separation distances set out within the Council’s Revised Residential Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document 2014. Appeal Decision 6009168 2 Reasons 4. The appeal site is an end of terrace property which stands within a primarily residential area. The host property is two storeys with a mono-pitch side extension, which currently provides a garage with a pedestrian link through to a further room/storage spaces which project beyond the rear elevation, attaching to a conservatory. The proposal which is before me seeks to construct a first-floor side extension, and canopy to the front elevation over the existing garage, which would provide two bedrooms (and an ensuite) with the extension being broadly similar in depth as the existing two storey element of the host dwelling. 5. The Council’s delegated report outlines, in terms of relevant planning history, application reference DC/21/65520 which the appellant states was an identical proposal at the appeal site to that which is before me. Given that the Black Country Core Strategy (CS) was adopted in February 2011, the Site Allocations and Delivery Development Plan Document (DPD) was adopted in 2012, and the Revised Residential Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) was adopted in 2014 there has been no material changes to the Local Plan, or the SPD, since the determination of application DC/21/65520. 6. Whilst I do not have the approved plans from application DC/21/65520 before me, as part of this appeal, it is evident that as an end of terrace property there is no other location a proposed first floor side extension could have been proposed or previously approved at the appeal site. It is, therefore, a relevant and fair material consideration that a first-floor side extension has previously been approved at the site. Despite this I have, as set out, considered the proposal on its own merits. 7. The proposal would have a set down roof and a set back at first floor level and would be visually appropriate, and subservient to, the host dwelling itself. A window is proposed in the flank elevation; however, it is clearly labelled on the proposed plans as being obscured which I consider to be appropriate given the window in question would be to serve an ensuite bathroom and not a habitable room in terms of impact to future occupants of the proposal itself. The extension would have a width in the region of 2.6 metres over the existing footprint. 8. The Council outline that the SPD requires a minimum separation distance of 14 metres between opposing 1 and 2 storey gables and rear facing window elevations. The guidance referred to essentially carries the overarching objective of ensuring appropriate standards of amenity for existing and future occupiers with regard to the general spacing, layout and proximity of built form. It is acknowledged that the proposal may fall short of the 14 metres set out with regard to 1 and 3 Cartwright Gardens, but I do not find that falling short of the guidance should automatically result in refusal. A proposal should still be considered in terms of actual impact. 9. I have no evidence before me to suggest that the properties on Cartwright Gardens would be negatively impacted with regard to privacy or outlook combined with the presence of varying outbuildings, fencing and built form. I do not find that, for example, the first-floor rear window within the proposed bedroom would offer a greater, or unacceptable level, of general intervisibility than that which is already present as a result of the existing relationship of the properties within the immediate locality. Natural views, from the window in question, would be towards the rear gardens of the properties facing onto Peel Way which are situated at an appropriate distance in terms of neighbouring residential amenity. Appeal Decision 6009168 3 10. Overall, the Council refused the proposal on the grounds that the proposed first floor side extension would be of a poor design. Other than a discussion as to falling short of the SPD guidance with regard to separation distances and replication of policy wording for CS Policy ENV3 and DPD Policy EOS 9 respectively, I find that the Council has provided no evidence of reasoned assessment to support that the proposal would be of poor design nor that the proposal would result in actual negative impacts sufficient to warrant refusal. 11. Based upon my assessment as outlined above I find that the proposal would be consistent with CS Policy ENV3 which requires proposals to respond to the identity of each place with high quality design proposals and DPD Policy EOS 9 which requires proposals to be appropriate in accordance with CS Policy ENV3 as well as taking into account the nature and height of any buildings and their effect on the surrounding urban area. Whilst the proposal would be contrary to the guidance, with regard to separation distances, set out within the SPD, taking into account the objectives of that guidance I do not find that the proposal would result in impact which would be sufficient to warrant refusal taking into account the site characteristics and general property relationships discussed above. Conditions 12. The Council’s appeal questionnaire suggests a condition relating to the first floor (ensuite) window in the side elevation requiring obscure glazing and that no part of the window can open below a height of 1.7 metres. I have applied this condition to protect the amenity of the adjacent properties whose rear elevation, and gardens, face towards/adjoin the appeal proposal as without this, a window in such a location would allow clear, inappropriate, views at close proximity which would have an unacceptable impact to neighbouring residential amenity in terms of privacy. 13. A time condition is attached to comply with Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. A condition requiring the development to be in accordance with the approved plans is required to control and define the development which is granted consent. A materials condition is required to ensure an appropriate finish and in order to match those used in the existing dwelling as set out within both the application form and the proposed elevational plans. Conclusion 14. For the reasons outlined above, and taking into account all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed subject to conditions. Eleni Marshall INSPECTOR