Ground floor front extension, single storey rear extension, garage conversion and loft conversion with front and rear dormers

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: 6012983 44 Wood Lane, Streetly, Walsall B74 3LR • 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 Davinder Singh Atwal against the decision of Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council. • The application Ref is 26/0305. • The development proposed is ground floor front extension, single storey rear extension, garage conversion and loft conversion with front and rear dormers. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matters 2. There have been changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) since the determination of the planning application. Both parties have been asked for their comments on the implications, if any, for this 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. 3. I have adopted the Council’s description of the development in the banner heading above as this is more succinct. The proposal includes a number of different elements, as set out in the development description in the banner heading above. However, it is the loft conversion with front and rear dormers to which the Council’s reasons for refusal are directed. Based on the Council’s delegated report and decision notice the Council do not find the ground floor single storey rear extension, nor the garage conversion to be unacceptable. I accordingly shall direct my assessment to the loft conversion with front and rear dormers. 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 bungalow sited within a residential street characterised by detached dwellings. The layout of the street is spacious and open with the dwellings on a broadly similar building line set back from the road behind front gardens. There is a mixture of both two storey and single storey properties with considerable variation in design and style within the street. Whilst their appearance varies considerably, on that side of the street where the single storey Appeal Decision 6012983 2 development is sited, the separation distances and spaces at first floor level are generally relatively consistent and create a strong visual gap between dwellings. This appearance is maintained by the presence of single storey garages to the side of some of the properties, as is the case with the appeal property, with its neighbouring property No 42 Wood Lane (No 42). This visual gap is particularly significant within the streetscene given that there is already a reduced separation distance between the appeal property and its other neighbouring property, No 46 Wood Lane (no 46). 6. As part of the proposed loft conversion, the proposal would see the introduction of large dormers with contemporary windows at first floor level and the loss of the gable at the front. Whilst the appearance of the dwelling would thus be changed as there is no uniformity of design amongst dwellings in the area, I do not find this unacceptable in principle. Nevertheless, the dormers by their width and height, including the provision of large expanses of glazing would be overly dominant within the front elevation to the detriment of the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the area. 7. I accept that there are a variety of fenestration features, including dormer windows, across the front elevations of the bungalows in the street but in the main these are adequately proportioned and subservient to the overall design of the dwellings. In this instance the proposed windows would not align in size and positioning with the windows and door at ground floor level creating an unsatisfactory unbalanced visual appearance to the host dwelling, in addition to the adverse impact to which I have referred above. 8. The Council’s Design Guidance ‘Designing Walsall’ Supplementary Planning document for Urban Design (SPD) provides that aspect distances between dwellings should reflect the existing character of the area and avoid the creation of terracing. The side extension would fill the gap at first floor level that currently separates the appeal property and No 42 and would remove the visual definition between the two dwellings. This terracing effect would be further exacerbated given the close proximity of the appeal property to No 46, resulting in a negative impact on the streetscene. 9. My attention has been drawn to an appeal in relation to No 42 where an Inspector concluded that the spaces above the garages at first floor level provide some openness which contributes positively to the character of this part of the streetscene. Such a decision does not limit the scope of my judgement in this case. However, the visual gap is an important characteristic of this part of the street scene, and it was an important factor for the inspector who dismissed the appeal. Having visited the area, I agree that the openness found in this location is significant within the street scene and whilst I have considered the present appeal on the merits of the case, I must give the previous Inspector’s findings significant weight. 10. In reaching my decision I have had regard to the policies within the Framework which support the proposal, including Policy L2 which indicates that substantial weight should be given to the benefits of a development proposal which creates additional floorspace. I acknowledge that the appellant has sought to achieve a collaborative approach with the Council and has sought to achieve a design of contemporary appearance whilst reflecting the variation in appearance, scale and style amongst the single storey development within Wood Lane. Appeal Decision 6012983 3 11. Whilst the Framework expressly does not preclude innovation or change especially where an increased scale of development is justified, it is also clear that substantial weight should be given to compliance with relevant development plan policies when assessing design quality. However, notwithstanding that the proposal would result in enlarged accommodation, Policy DP3(1) of the Framework also requires that proposals should respond to their context so that they integrate with and enhance their surroundings. Policy DP3(3) also requires that development should be refused if without clear justification they conflict with paragraph 1. I have been presented with no clear justification in this case. 12. Therefore, I conclude that overall the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the area. As such it would be contrary to Policies GP2 and ENV32 of the Walsall Unitary Development Plan (UDP) (2005), and Policies CPS4 and ENV3 of the Black Country Core Strategy. Together these policies require a high quality of design in all development. It would also be contrary to design guidelines within the SPD as set out above, and in conflict with the Framework which seeks to ensure the importance of achieving well designed development. 13. Policy S4 of the Framework states that development proposals within settlements should be approved unless adverse effects substantially outweigh the benefits. At S4(2)(c) one of the circumstances in which the benefits of approving the development are likely to be substantially outweighed by adverse effects would be failure to comply with one of the national decision-making policies which state that development proposals should be refused in specific circumstances. I have found that to be the case here with respect to Policy DP3. Hence, any limited economic benefits would be outweighed by the adverse effect to the character and appearance of the host property and the area, and it would not amount to substainable development or the effective use of land under the terms of the Framework. 14. I therefore dismiss the appeal. K Winnard INSPECTOR