Roof alterations, loft conversion and single storey extension with loft rooms

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 17 August 2026 by K Winnard LL.B Hons Solicitor an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 28 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6011143 88 Trysull Road, Wolverhampton, WV3 7JF • 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 and Mrs Florian against the decision of City of Wolverhampton Council. • The application Ref is 26/00235/FUL. • The development proposed is roof alterations, loft conversion and single storey extension with loft rooms. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matters 2. Whilst revised plans were submitted during the course of the application, on the information before me these were not considered by the Council. I have therefore made my decision on the plans originally submitted with the application. 3. There have been changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) since the determination of the planning application. Both parties have therefore been given the opportunity to comment on whether they are any implications for the appeal. I have had regard to the position of both parties in making my decision and in so doing I am satisfied that no party has been prejudiced by my consideration of this issue. Main Issue 4. The main issue in the appeal is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the host building and the area. Reasons 5. The appeal property is a detached dwelling sited on a prominent corner plot at the junction of Trysull Road and Bamber Close in a predominantly residential area. It retains simple roof lines and a compact form, and is enclosed on its north eastern boundary with Bamber Close by substantial landscaping. This makes for a softly landscaped boundary which contrasts strongly with the otherwise suburban character of the area. 6. The proposed development would raise the height of the roof significantly, with a ridge orientated in the opposite direction to the existing and extending upwards to include dormer windows in the rear and roof lights in the front. Substantial bulk would be added to the roof plane which would, due to its prominent position, be Appeal Decision 6011143 2 visible from both Trysull Road and Bamber Close. The addition of a side extension, rising to the eaves levels of the existing dwelling and incorporating rooflights and a rear dormer, would add to its bulk. The extensions and the rear dormers, by virtue of their scale and design would fail to achieve an appropriate degree of subservience to the host dwelling with the effect that the character and form of the original building would be lost. 7. The Council have expressed concern as to the potential loss of the landscaping at the northern eastern boundary of the appeal property. The hedge is substantial and would be likely, in my view, to be reduced at the least, if not partially removed in order to accommodate the side extension in the position proposed. The harm I have identified would become more apparent were the existing landscaping to be cut back or removed. On the information before me and my observations on site, I am not convinced that sufficient land would remain available to accommodate a landscaping scheme capable of adequately mitigating the visual effects of the proposal. 8. I appreciate that some aspects, but not all, of the development would adhere to parts of the Council’s Extensions to Houses Supplementary Planning Document No 4 (SPD) such as rooflights instead of front dormers, and the retention of rear amenity space. However, achieving some criteria does not necessarily equate to an acceptable development and each site needs to be considered on its own merits. The SPD is clear that a primary aim for all development is that extensions should respect the design of the existing house and not stand out obviously as an extension, which would not be the case in this instance. 9. The proposal seeks to extend and refurbish the existing property as much as possible and allowing for an improvement in layout and room sizes, including the creation of loft accommodation, to create a more functional family house. The Framework is clear that substantial weight should be given to the benefits of a development proposal which creates additional floorspace. The appeal site is a street corner plot and the Framework indicates that it could be appropriate to have a larger building on a street corner plot which would not be consistent with the overall street scene. The Framework also provides that development within settlements should be approved unless adverse effects substantially outweigh the benefits. 10. Whilst the proposal would serve as an orientation feature to the streetscene, the overall combination of the roof alterations, rooflights and rear dormers would appear incongruous in the context of the streetscene which as a whole does not display such features. The Framework also requires that proposals should respond to their context so that they integrate and enhance their surroundings. Whilst innovation or change, especially where an increased scale of development is justified, is not precluded, the Framework is also clear that substantial weight should be given to compliance with relevant development plan policies when assessing design quality. For the reasons set out above, this would not be the case in this instance. 11. Therefore, for the above reasons, I conclude that the proposal would have an unacceptably harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the area. It would therefore conflict with Saved Policies D4, D7, and D8 of the Wolverhampton Unitary Development Plan (2006) which seeks to ensure that developments are of a height, scale and appearance that responds positively to the Appeal Decision 6011143 3 surroundings. It would also fail to comply with Policy ENV3 of the Black Country Core Strategy (2011) which promotes high quality design that is influenced by its context and to the overall design aims set out in the SPD. 12. Policy S4 of the Framework also refers to development taking place within settlements. S4(1) states that development proposals within settlements should be approved unless the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects, when assessed against the national decision-making policies in the Framework. Whilst there would be benefits flowing from the proposal including enhancement of the living accommodation for family needs and limited economic benefits, I consider that the total benefits would be substantially outweighed by the harms I have identified above. 13. For the above reasons I hereby dismiss the appeal. K Winnard INSPECTOR