Appeal over Cradley Heath bungalow plan that angered neighbours thrown out by inspector
Plans for a new bungalow that angered neighbours have been thrown out by a government planning inspector.
Sandwell Council rejected a planning application to build the two-bed bungalow in Castle Close, Cradley Heath, saying a near-five-metre retaining wall in the cul-de-sac would leave neighbours feeling “enclosed".
An appeal over the decision was then made to the government planning inspectorate but the move has been dismissed.
The government planning inspector ageed with Sandwell Council, saying the retaining wall and fence would be ‘significantly overbearing’.
A report outlining the decision said: “As a result, the outlook from the rear elevations [of the homes in] Perry Park Road looking across their short, gently rising, rear gardens, and from those gardens themselves, would become markedly more enclosed.
“The retaining wall and fence would be tall, domineering features which would loom over those properties, leading to a significant sense of overbearance, to the significant detriment of the occupiers’ living conditions."
Rejecting the application, planners at Sandwell Council said the retaining wall and fence was “poorly designed” and would be an “abrupt and dominant feature” for those living in Perry Park Road.
As a result it would result in an “unacceptable sense of enclosure and loss of outlook,” the council said.
Eight people had objected to the plans, saying it would result in a loss of privacy and also lead to a loss of a wildlife habitat.
Some objectors also pointed to landslides in nearby Haden Cross Drive, less than a mile away, where new homes on a recently built estate were ‘cut off’ by a huge mound of earth blocking the road.
A report outlining the objection said: “The local planning authority are therefore of the opinion that the scale, massing and height of the proposed boundary retaining wall and fencing is of a poor design presenting an abrupt and dominant feature to the properties on Perry Park Road resulting in an unacceptable sense of enclosure and loss of outlook.”
However, the council said it did not believe the bungalow would cause a “significant loss of privacy” and the retaining wall would prevent overlooking.
“Any loss of light from the structure would be limited to early morning due to the orientation of the properties,” the council added.
