- Decision
- dismissed, 1 October 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: B Plenty
- Authority
- Wolverhampton (West Midlands)
- Appeal reference
- 6009135
- Application reference
- 25/00187/FUL
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Change of use of a retail unit to residential, extension of an existing flat, and a two-storey side extension to create two additional flats
- Homes
- 2
- Site context
- inside settlement
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- L2(1)(d)(i), L2(1)(d)(ii), S4(1)
- Development plan policies
- Wolverhampton Unitary Development Plan 2006 D4, D5, D7, D8, D9, H6, EP4, EP5, AM12, AM15, Black Country Core Strategy 2011 ENV3, CEN6
- Main issues
- character and appearance; living conditions; parking and highway safety; loss of a local service
Summary
A two-storey side extension and conversion to create two more flats at the end of a small parade in Wednesfield was dismissed. The extension would dominate an open corner and breach the building line, and the shared amenity space and the relationship with one ground-floor flat were poor. The inspector tied both harms to the L2(1)(d) criteria and found the benefits substantially outweighed under S4.
Issues and findings
- Transition. "the provisions in respect of the matters relied on by the main parties are not materially changed. Therefore, I did not need to consult with the main parties regarding the revised Framework" (DL ¶2).
- Character: harm. "the proposal would demonstrably harm the appearance of the streetscene" (DL ¶9).
- Living conditions: harm. The scheme would "create a poor relationship for the occupiers of flat 3 with users of the external space, resulting in poor living conditions through inadequate privacy, and unacceptable levels of noise and general disturbance" (DL ¶18).
- Parking and highway safety: acceptable. "the proposal would not create a significant increase in on-street parking pressure or result in an adverse effect on highway safety" (DL ¶24).
- L2(1)(d)(i) and (ii): CONFLICT. "the proposal would not be consistent with the overall streetscene, in conflict with policy L2(1)(d)(i) of the Framework. The scheme would also create poor living standards for existing and future residents, in terms of provision of external space and effect on privacy, as sought by the Framework’s policy L2(1)(d)(ii)" (DL ¶32).
Planning balance
S4(1), after a plan-led finding of conflict given significant weight (DL ¶29). HO7 and the accessible location weigh in favour (DL ¶30–31). "the benefits of the proposed development, would be substantially outweighed by the identified adverse effects of the proposal, when assessed against the national decision-making policies of the Framework as a whole" (DL ¶33). DP3 is not cited; the design harm is routed through L2(1)(d)(i).
What made the difference
The corner. The existing single-storey extension left space above it, and a full-height addition close to the footway would end that openness. A scheme confined to the change of use, or with a set-back upper floor and a usable private amenity area, would have avoided both harms.
Transferable points
- The L2(1)(d) criteria work as tests of harm as well as conditions for L2 weight: street-scene inconsistency and poor external space or privacy were recorded as conflicts with L2(1)(d)(i) and (ii) (DL ¶32).
- Nearby public open space does not make up for poor on-site amenity space for flats (DL ¶15).
- Meeting a maximum parking standard and showing fewer trips than the lawful commercial use answered the parking objection (DL ¶19–20, ¶24).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| L2(1)(d)(i) | conflict | first-floor side extension breaches the Fairview Grove building line and dominates an open corner; not consistent with the overall street scene (DL 8-11, 32) | |
| L2(1)(d)(ii) | conflict | poor-quality shared external space and loss of privacy and disturbance for flat 3; unacceptable living standards (DL 12-18, 32) | |
| S4(1) | fail | benefits substantially outweighed; letter says "S03" and "S04" (DL 30, 33) | |
| HO7 | benefit | HO7 substantial weight cited (letter says "H07") but no weight expressly given to the net gain of 2 dwellings (DL 30-31) | |
| TR3 | benefit | mapped - urban location within walking distance of bus routes weighs in favour, in TR3 wording; TR3 not named (DL 23, 31) | |
| TR6 | pass | mapped - parking below the maximum standard; no significant on-street pressure or highway safety effect (DL 19-24) |
Key facts
- End unit of a flat-roofed parade of four on a prominent corner plot; a single-storey side extension approved in 2015 has since been built (DL 3, 6-7)
- Shared rear amenity area of 125 sq m, hard-surfaced, awkwardly shaped and overlooked from the footway (DL 12-14)
- Public open space 500 m to 1,700 m away does not replace on-site private space (DL 15)
- Loss of the retail unit acceptable under CS CEN6 - hairdressers are well provided locally and the unit has long been vacant (DL 25-28)
- Plan conflict given significant weight (DL 29)
- Parties not consulted on the August 2026 Framework; provisions relied on "not materially changed" (DL 2)
Sources
This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.