Land adjacent to 9 Yarnborough Hill, Oldswinford, Stourbridge, DY8 2EB

Land adjacent to 9 Yarnborough Hill, Oldswinford, Stourbridge, DY8 2EB — Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision Site Visit made on 21 September 2021 by Stuart Willis BA Hons MSc PGCE MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 21 October 2021 Appeal Ref: APP/C4615/W/21/3276185 Land at Yarnborough Hill, Oldswinford, Stourbridge • 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 Mr David Billingham of Billingham and Kite Ltd against the decision of Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council. • The application Ref P20/1919, dated 11 December 2020, was refused by notice dated 18 March 2021. • The development proposed is erection of single detached dwelling. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. Following the refusal of the application the new National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) has been published. The parties have had the opportunity to comment on this as part of their appeal submissions. There have been no fundamental changes relevant to the main issues in this appeal. 3. I have taken the description of development and site address above from the application form. Although different to that given on the decision notice, no confirmation has been provided that a change was agreed.

Land adjacent to 9 Yarnborough Hill, Oldswinford, Stourbridge, DY8 2EB — Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision Main Issue 4. The main issue of the appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, including with regard to protected trees. Reasons 5. In Yarnborough Hill and the surrounding area there are frequent street trees and further mature landscaping within plots. This, including the trees subject to a Tree Preservation Order at the appeal site contributes to the verdant feel of the streetscene. This helps to screen and break up the built form. 6. T2 is prominent upon entering the street, while T1 can be seen from most parts of it as a result of the surrounding land levels and size of the trees. As such, they are prominent features in the streetscene. While it has not been shown that these are ancient of veteran trees, they, along with the site as a whole, make a substantial and positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area. 7. The Arboricultural Report refers to decaying wounds to the stem of T1 and decaying pruning wounds that mean it requires felling. However, no details https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Land adjacent to 9 Yarnborough Hill, Oldswinford, Stourbridge, DY8 2EB — Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/C4615/W/21/3276185 showing the position or extent of these has been included. Moreover, the Arboricultural Report states that the survey is not an assessment of the condition of any tree referred to in it and cannot be relied upon as an assessment of the health and safety of any tree within or adjacent to the site. Furthermore, it notes that Category U trees can have conservation value which mean they may be desirable to preserve. T1 is an important feature in a prominent position within the streetscene. On the basis of the information before me, its removal has not been justified. 8. The proposed dwelling would be partly within the root protection area of T2. The tree is classified as “young” and with no significant visible defects in the Arboricultural Report. There is limited detail presented relating to the effect of the proposed building works on the tree. 9. Even if T2 were able to be retained following the construction works it would feature prominently in the outlook from the living room and one of the bedroom windows. Given the size and proximity of the tree, it would be a dominant feature that would result in an enclosing effect.

Land adjacent to 9 Yarnborough Hill, Oldswinford, Stourbridge, DY8 2EB — Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision This would be likely to lead to future pressure to lop, top, or fell the tree. Permission would be required for such works. However, the removal would bring about benefits to the occupiers of the dwelling that the Council would need to consider. Therefore, I cannot be sure that the tree could or would be retained. 10. Given the size and contribution of the trees to the visual amenity of the area, the proposed compensatory planting would not be sufficient to address the loss. 11. On the basis of the evidence before me, the scheme would erode the aesthetically pleasing influence that the trees have on the area. 12. The proposed dwelling would draw on elements of the nearby built form in terms of its materials and features. Moreover, properties in the street are not uniform in their appearance. Gables, garages and porches give an element of staggering to the existing front building lines in places. However, existing dwellings are generally wide linear buildings. The extent of the staggering at the proposed property would give it a disjointed feel. This is added to by the inconsistency in the design of the openings and having the main entrance on a side elevation.

Land adjacent to 9 Yarnborough Hill, Oldswinford, Stourbridge, DY8 2EB — Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision The dwelling, detached garage, boundary wall and terrace would spread the largely blank built form across a significant amount of the plot. 13. Consequently, the dwelling would appear discordant with the generally more simplistic appearance of those that it would be seen with. Although the retained roadside hedgerow and compensatory planting proposed would soften the appearance of the site, the discordance would be obvious from the street and nearby properties. 14. The proposed dwelling would be raised from the properties opposite and behind. However, this is not uncommon in the street given the slope of the land and I saw similarly raised properties near the turning head. The separation distance to the dwellings opposite would be comparable to the rest of the street, as would the height of the proposed dwelling and it would be stepped down from the one above. Therefore, although it would be clearly seen along various parts of the road, the dwelling would not appear overbearing in the street. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

Land adjacent to 9 Yarnborough Hill, Oldswinford, Stourbridge, DY8 2EB — Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/C4615/W/21/3276185 15. The plot is a different shape and a smaller size than many nearby. Notwithstanding this, there is some variation in plot sizes, sufficient outdoor space would be provided, and the scheme would generally follow the existing building line to both sides. The position of the dwelling means it would appear as a continuation of the line of properties above. 16. Nonetheless, the proposed development would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the area, including in regard to protected trees. It would fail to comply with Policies ENV1, ENV2, ENV3, HOU2 and CSP of the Core Strategy1, and Policies S1, S6, S8, S22 and L1 of the Development Strategy2, the SPD3 and the National Design Guide. These, in part, require proposals to be influenced by, and take account of local context, character and distinctiveness as well as providing information on the impact on, and replacement of trees. 17. Policy HOU1 of the Core Strategy relates to housing supply and distribution, and Policy S21 with biodiversity as is the Nature Conservation SPD, rather than matters of character and appearance. As such, these are not directly relevant to the main issue. Other Matters 18.

Land adjacent to 9 Yarnborough Hill, Oldswinford, Stourbridge, DY8 2EB — Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision The proposal would lead to significant harm to the character and appearance of the area. It would conflict with development plan policies that are generally consistent with the Framework in this regard. 19. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states that applications for planning permission, and therefore appeals, must be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. 20. The proposal would align with the Framework where it seeks to significantly boost the supply of housing and acknowledges that small-scale developments can make an important contribution to meeting the housing requirement and be built out quickly. The site is in a location accessible to services and facilities. However, being for a single dwelling, the contribution towards housing supply, along with economic and social benefits from the new homes grant, construction and occupation of the property would be small. 21. The proposal would be contrary to the Framework where it requires schemes to be sympathetic to local character and that existing trees are retained wherever possible. This attracts significant weight. 22.

Land adjacent to 9 Yarnborough Hill, Oldswinford, Stourbridge, DY8 2EB — Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision Even if I were to agree with the appellant with regard to the Council’s position with housing land supply, the adverse impacts of allowing the scheme would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. 23. I appreciate that the appellant has amended the scheme in an attempt to overcome previous refusal reasons. However, I have found unacceptable harm would arise from the scheme before me. The merits of a potential future purchase notice are not a consideration that affects my findings on the main issue. 1 Black Country Core Strategy 2 Dudley Borough Development Strategy 3 New Housing Development Supplementary Planning Document https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

Land adjacent to 9 Yarnborough Hill, Oldswinford, Stourbridge, DY8 2EB — Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision Even if I were to agree with the appellant with regard to the Council’s position with housing land supply, the adverse impacts of allowing the scheme would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. 23. I appreciate that the appellant has amended the scheme in an attempt to overcome previous refusal reasons. However, I have found unacceptable harm would arise from the scheme before me. The merits of a potential future purchase notice are not a consideration that affects my findings on the main issue. 1 Black Country Core Strategy 2 Dudley Borough Development Strategy 3 New Housing Development Supplementary Planning Document https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3 Appeal Decision APP/C4615/W/21/3276185 Conclusion 24. The proposal conflicts with the development plan when considered as a whole and there are no material considerations, either individually or in combination, that outweighs the identified harm and associated development plan conflict. 25. Therefore, for the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.

Land adjacent to 9 Yarnborough Hill, Oldswinford, Stourbridge, DY8 2EB — Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council — Stuart Willis INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4