Replacement four-bedroom dwelling at 15 Richard Road, Walsall

The site and surroundings

The site contains a modest detached home in a residential group with clean, simple architecture and is in Flood Zone 1.

“The property is a modest size detached dwelling, located in a residential area. The dwelling forms part of a particular group of properties on this section of Richard Road which are of clean and simple architecture with minimal changes to the facades since their erection. While variations have been added to some of this group, they all continue the simplistic design which is characteristic of these dwellings.”

“The application site is located within Flood Zone 1 and a Coal Development Low Risk Area.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

An earlier replacement dwelling was refused, a resubmission was granted subject to conditions, and a larger home extension received prior approval.

“23/1522 - Resubmission of 23/0964: Bedroom Replacement Dwelling – Grant Subject to Conditions 29-02-24.”

“24/1529 – Prior approval for a larger home extension for a single storey rear extension with a pitched roof. Measuring 6 metres long from the original rear elevation, 4 metres total height and 3 metres high at the eaves measured externally from the natural ground. Prior Approval: Granted – 24-12-24.”

Officer report

The officers’ recommendation

Officers recommended refusal because the proposal would not reflect the surrounding character and would conflict with planning policies and guidance.

“This application has failed to demonstrate that the proposal would reflect the surrounding character of the area due to its siting within a group of very simplistically designed dwellings.”

“The material planning considerations weigh against the proposal such that it is recommended for refusal.”

Officer report

Design and neighbours

The main concern was that the prominent gables, projection, glazing and balcony would harm the character of the distinctive group of homes.

“The applicant’s property falls within a distinct group of properties on Richard Road that are of a similar design and appearance. Collectively, they form a combined character which is clean and simple 50’s/60’s architecture with flat roofs at ground floor and pitched roof designs at second storey which is archetypical of this group.”

“Taking the above into account, it is fair to say that the proposal under this application would be far greater in scale than what has been dismissed at no. This application introduces two prominent gable features, with the central gable extending 3.2m beyond the principal elevation, with a front balcony and large apex glazing.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Highways, water, trees, environmental protection, police and fire consultees raised no objection subject to conditions or recommendations.

“Environmental Protection No objection subject to a solid fuel stove condition attached to any permission. This aspect is covered by Building Regulations and is therefore considered would not meet the 6 tests required for conditions by the NPPF and has therefore been omitted from the list of conditions detailed below.”

“Environmental Protection have advised that the matter of asbestos falls out of their technical expertise. No concerns raised with the submitted Environmental Management Plan.”

Officer report

Neighbour comments

One neighbour objected to the design, its effect on light, and the side elevation; no supporting comments were received.

“Neighbour and interested parties’ comments (planning officer’s summary)”

“Objection 1 neighbour objection has been received which relates to: - Out of character with the simple house designs of the street - Side elevation will loom over us - Loss of light to rear windows, garden and patio - Loss of light to landing window This is not a habitable room and therefore not protected. - Loss of light and view to side facing bedroom window Loss of view is not a material planning consideration.”

Officer report

What speakers said

A neighbour said the proposal would be overbearing and out of character, while the agent pointed to similar local features and limited footprint change.

Committee debate

Members discussed whether describing the proposal as incongruous was subjective and considered the area’s diverse street scene and similar features.

“There followed a period of debate during which several Members discussed the subjective nature of an application being considered ‘incongruous’.”

Minutes

The decision

Planning Committee refused permission for the application for the reasons set out in the officer’s report and supplementary paper.

“It was moved by Councillor Hicken and seconded by Councillor Statham and upon being put to the vote it was;”

“That Planning Committee refuse planning permission for application 25/0482, for the reasons set out in the officer’s report and supplementary paper.”

Minutes