Retention of a single storey and two storey rear extension, and hip to gable roof loft conversion with dormers to front, side and rear Decision

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 17 July 2026 by K Winnard LL.B Hons Solicitor an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 31 July 2026 Appeal Ref: 6010738 62 Gorse Farm Road, Great Barr, Sandwell, Birmingham B43 5LR • 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 Steven Reilley against the decision of Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council. • The application Ref is DC/25/71315. • The development is described as the retention of a single storey and two storey rear extension, and hip to gable roof loft conversion with dormers to front, side and rear Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matter 2. Planning permission was previously granted for a two storey rear extension including the raising of the roof height and a loft conversion (the 2020 permission).1 The application, the subject of the appeal seeks to regularise works which have already been completed, outside of the scope of the 2020 permission. These works include, amongst other things the alteration from a hipped roof to a gable roof to facilitate the loft conversion and rear dormer now constructed. From what I saw, save for the fenestration details, the works appear to reflect the plans the subject of this appeal application and I have accordingly considered the appeal on this basis. 3. I have adopted the description of the development used by the Council in the decision notice in the banner heading above, as this describes the development more accurately. Main Issue 4. The main issue in the appeal is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the area. Reasons 4 The appeal property is a semi detached dwelling on the western side of Gorse Farm Road. The surrounding area is predominantly residential with mainly pairs of semi detached properties dating from a similar period set back from the road behind front gardens. With a limited number of exceptions most properties retain their hipped roofs. On this side of Gorse Farm Road as it rises from its junction with Langford Avenue/Eastwood Road, the hipped roofs of the dwellings form an 1 Dc/20/64777 Appeal Decision 6010738 2 uniform pattern of development which creates a balanced and pleasant character to the street scene. 5. The development includes a number of elements, but the Council’s main concern relates to the hip to gable roof extension and the materials used in its construction, including the use of a standing seam. The hip to gable extension by altering the traditional hipped roof design of the original dwelling results in substantial bulk being added to the roof form. Whilst the 2020 permission included a raising of the ridge height to that of the attached property the loss of the hipped roof design creates an awkward and unbalanced appearance that detracts from the appearance of the host dwelling and the neighbouring attached dwelling. 6. I acknowledge that due to the topography of the street, the two properties are on a staggered level and in this respect lack symmetry. However, the development through its design and form has fundamentally altered the shape of the dwelling which unbalances its relationship with the adjoining dwelling. Further, rather than the incorporation of glass roof lights and a standing seam mitigating the impact of the development, they emphasis the prominence of the extension as built and increase its visual impact. As such, the development causes unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling. 7. Reference has been made to other roof alterations including large dormer extensions and hip to gable extensions within the wider area and that such development has become characteristic of the area as a whole. I saw several of the examples referred to on my site visit. Whilst properties which have evolved over time adopting different design approaches may have altered the character of the surrounding area to an extent, I do not consider that they lend support to the proposal. A predominant roof design is still retained in Gorse Farm Road which gives the pairs of properties a distinctive appearance and as such the development as constructed results in an unbalanced appearance with the attached neighbouring property and the wider streetscene. 8. My attention has been drawn to specific examples of roof alterations and dormers to properties within adjacent streets, but I do not have information as to the circumstances that led to those works, including the relevant development plan policies at the time. In any event, whilst they may display similar design features, none appeared directly comparable to the proposal before me in terms of their particular site context and setting. In any event I have considered the proposal on its own planning merits and the presence of other extensions in the nearby area does not dissuade me from my conclusion regarding the particular harm to character and appearance that arises in this instance. 9. I have considered the appellant’s arguments that the design of the roof alterations as constructed has been carefully considered and redesigned in what the appellant believed to be within permitted development allowances under the Town and Country (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (the GPDO). I note too the assertion that the development as built is minor in nature compared to what may have been allowed under permitted development rights. I accept that large roof and dormer extensions can be built under permitted development rights and are not uncommon. However, the limitations in size and conditions set out in the GDPO are precise and conditional and any fallback position for the enlargement and rear dormer based on such rights has not been Appeal Decision 6010738 3 substantiated in evidence before me, particularly as the Council disputes this. As such I give this matter little weight. 9. I therefore conclude that the development causes unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the area. As such it is contrary to Policy ENV3 of the Black Country Core Strategy and EOS9 of the Site Allocations and Delivery Plan Document which together require development to be of a high quality and not to be out of scale with their surroundings. Other matters 10. The scheme provides additional living space that would accommodate larger families in addition to the social and economic benefits which results from enlargement of the housing stock. However, whilst I have had regard to the matters which weigh in favour of the development, including the lack of objections locally, they are not sufficient to outweigh my concerns. 11. I note the appellant’s concerns that he feels that the Council did not fully engage with him to overcome their concerns and the position regarding permitted development allowances, but in reaching my decision I have been only concerned with the planning merits of the case. Conclusion 12. For the reasons given above, I hereby dismiss the appeal. K Winnard INSPECTOR