Detached garage and removal of 1 Tulip tree

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 13 November 2017 by Karen L Baker DipTP MA DipMP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 28th November 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/P4605/D/17/3184860 20 Ladywood Road, Sutton Four Oaks, Sutton Coldfield B74 2SW  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 Dr Gopal against the decision of Birmingham City Council.  The application Ref. 2017/06029/PA, dated 6 July 2017, was refused by notice dated 31 August 2017.  The development proposed is a detached garage and removal of 1 Tulip tree. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues in this appeal are: a) the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and streetscene; and, b) whether or not the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Four Oaks Conservation Area. Reasons Character and appearance of the existing dwelling and streetscene 3. The appeal site is located on a corner plot on the western side of Ladywood Road, at its junction with Bracebridge Road, in the Four Oaks Conservation Area. The local area is predominantly residential in character and the dwellings are mostly substantial detached properties of 2 to 2.5 storeys in height, set within large plots. At the time of my site visit, the existing dwelling at No. 20 Ladywood Road was in the process of being comprehensively extended and remodelled to create a substantial 2.5 storey dwelling. The dwellings on the western side of Ladywood Road are mostly set back a significant distance from the highway and are sited within landscaped grounds, beyond existing boundary fencing/screening. Most have gated access, with long driveways leading to garages sited to the side of the main dwelling. 4. Policy PG3 of Birmingham Development Plan, Part of Birmingham’s Local Plan, adopted in January 2017, says that all new development will be expected to demonstrate high design quality, contributing to a strong sense of place, and should reinforce or create a positive sense of place and local distinctiveness, with design that responds to site conditions and the local area context, Appeal Decision APP/P4605/D/17/3184860 2 including heritage assets and appropriate use of innovation in design, amongst other things. 5. Policy 3.14D of The Birmingham Plan, Birmingham Unitary Development Plan 2005, adopted in July 1993, incorporating alterations approved by Birmingham City Council for adoption in October 2005, says that applications for new development will be assessed against a number of principles including the impact that the proposed development would have on the local character of an area. 6. The Council’s Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) Extending Your Home: Home Extensions Design Guide SPD, adopted in March 2007, advises that developments should respect the appearance of the local area. It goes on to say that garages should be in proportion to the size of the house and should not stand out as prominent features as this can spoil the appearance of the home and character of the area. It further states that additions to the front of a property would only be acceptable if they clearly improve the appearance of the house as such development can dominate the view for passers-by, step out of line from the existing line of frontages and spoil the character of the house or area. 7. The Council is concerned that the size of the proposed garage would be out of scale with the existing house. The proposed development would include the construction of a triple garage which would be sited close to the northern boundary of the appeal site, and set forward of the front elevation of the main dwelling. The appellant states that the proposed garage would be around 10.5m x 7m, with a height of around 6.9m to the ridge. I note that the existing extended dwelling on the appeal site is substantial. Indeed, the appellant states that it is around 41m x 37m, with a height of 10.9m. I also acknowledge the appellant’s view that the garage would have a volume of around 2% of the house. The design of the proposed garage block would include 3 gabled dormers in its southern roofslope. These would increase the prominence of this building within the appeal site. Given this, along with its scale, mass and siting, the proposed garage would be visually dominant and would not appear subservient to the host dwelling. 8. The proposed garage would be set back from Ladywood Road by around 15m. I acknowledge that the existing boundary treatment would limit some views into the appeal site from Ladywood Road and Bracebridge Road. However, given that the land rises from south to north along Ladywood Road, along with the scale, height, mass and siting of the proposed garage, it would appear as a visually obtrusive and alien feature in the streetscene, to the detriment of the character and appearance of the area. 9. I conclude, therefore, that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and streetscene. As such, it would be contrary to Birmingham Development Plan Policy PG3 and Policies 3.14C and 3.14D of The Birmingham Plan, and would not accord with the Council’s Home Extensions Design Guide SPD. Character and appearance of the Four Oaks Conservation Area 10. The appeal site is situated in the Four Oaks Conservation Area. Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires that Appeal Decision APP/P4605/D/17/3184860 3 special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas. 11. One of the Core Planning Principles of The Framework is that planning should conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance, so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of this and future generations (paragraph 17). Government policy on conserving and enhancing the historic environment is set out in Section 12 of The Framework. Paragraph 132 advises that great weight should be given to the designated heritage asset’s conservation and that the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. 12. The Four Oaks Conservation Area includes mostly residential properties, some of which are listed buildings, of high environmental quality and architectural interest. The Four Oaks Estate, most of which is located within the conservation area, was designed under the influence of the Arts and Crafts movement at the turn of the 20th Century. It was apparent from my site visit that some redevelopment of individual plots within this estate has been undertaken, along with some infill and backland development, some of which does not respect the character of the area. I also note the examples of other large detached garages referred to by the appellant, which are set in front, or to the side, of the main dwelling. However, the development within the Four Oaks Estate is generally consistent, with the plots continuing to be defined by the established tree-lined private avenues and the houses being of an appropriate scale, set back from the highway, within a woodland setting. 13. The Four Oaks Estate Sutton Coldfield Development Guidelines, approved in May 1993, set out a number of development control criteria which should be applied to new development in order to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area, including that buildings should respect any established building line. 14. The proposed garage would be sited forward of the established building line, along this part of Ladywood Road, and would not respect the design characteristics and layout of development within plots in this part of the conservation area. Furthermore, the proposed garage would not reflect the massing, eaves heights and ridge heights of other garages within this part of the conservation area. As such, it would not be of a similar vernacular character and would not respect, or respond well to, the historic design and layout of the other dwellings. As a result, the proposed garage would cause harm to the character and appearance of the heritage asset. Nevertheless, I consider that this would be less than substantial harm. 15. As I have identified less than substantial harm to the designated heritage asset, it is necessary to weigh the harm against the public benefits of the appeal proposal as required by paragraph 134 of The Framework. The proposed development would provide parking for 3 vehicles on the appeal site. However, no specific public benefits have been identified in respect of the scheme. Whilst there would be a modest benefit to the housing stock as a result of the proposal, that benefit is very small and does not outweigh the harm, albeit less than substantial, to the Four Oaks Conservation Area. 16. I conclude, therefore, that the proposed development would fail to preserve the character or appearance of the Four Oaks Conservation Area. As such it would be contrary to Birmingham Development Plan Policy PG3 and Policies 3.14C Appeal Decision APP/P4605/D/17/3184860 4 and 3.14D of The Birmingham Plan and would not accord with The Framework, the Council’s SPD and the guidance in the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) Places for Living, approved in March 2001, and the Development Guidelines. 17. I have considered all the other matters raised by the appellant including that the site has benefitted from planning permission for the construction of a standalone garage in the past (Application Ref. E/ / C/46525/003) which was approved in September 1980; but none changes my overall conclusion that the appeal should be dismissed. Karen L Baker INSPECTOR