Demolition of canopy over first floor windows, single storey extension to side and porch to front of property

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 27 March 2018 by F Rafiq BSc (Hons), MCD, MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 20 April 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/P1805/D/17/3192038 33A Fiery Hill Road, Barnt Green, B45 8LE  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 & Mrs A & J Hodges against the decision of Bromsgrove District Council.  The application Ref 17/01034/FUL dated 8 September 2017 was refused by notice dated 3 November 2017.  The development proposed is the demolition of canopy over first floor windows, single storey extension to side and porch to front of property. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. I consider the main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host property and whether it would preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Barnt Green Conservation Area. Reasons 3. The appeal property is a detached dwelling which is situated within the Barnt Green Conservation Area (Conservation Area). The surrounding area is predominantly residential with Barnt Green Railway Station located in close proximity to the site. The Conservation Area comprises of a mixture of dwelling types on a variety of plot sizes. Despite this variance, the presence of hedgerows and vegetation along front boundaries, as well as street trees, contribute to a spacious, open character. Dormer Extension 4. The appeal proposal includes a dormer extension on the western side of the dwelling. This would be set back from the front elevation, but would extend a significant distance along the roof. It would also only have a small set down from the ridge. Reference has been made to this set back and set down complying with the Council’s design guide for dormer extensions, but I have not been provided with details of this document. Given the size of the dormer, it would significantly increase the scale and mass of the dwelling at roof level. Appeal Decision APP/P1805/D/17/3192038 2 5. Reference has been made to the roof form of a neighbouring building that adjoins the appeal site. This neighbouring property at No. 33 has a two-storey gable feature to the side elevation. The design of this neighbouring building is, however, fundamentally different from the appeal site. As the Appellant states, with reference to a previous appeal decision1 on this site, there is a notable contrast in the plainer style of the appeal site and the adjoining neighbouring house. From my own site observations, the neighbouring building is much wider and has a gable ended roof on both its sides. The appeal dwelling by comparison, is narrower and has a gable frontage with pitched roof form to either side. The dormer of the size proposed, to one side of the roof, would therefore unbalance the dwelling and result in it having a harmful effect on the Conservation Area. I recognise that the proposal would utilise materials which are sympathetic to the existing structure, but this would not, for the reasons set out earlier, result in this element of the development blending in satisfactorily with the host structure. 6. I conclude that the proposed dormer extension would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the host property, and would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. This would be contrary to Policies BDP1 and BDP20 of the Bromsgrove District Plan, which seek, amongst other matters, to sustain and enhance the significance of heritage assets. It would also be contrary to Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework), which seeks to conserve or enhance the historic environment. Side Extension 7. The proposal also seeks permission for a side extension, which would utilise part of an enclosed area behind a wall that links the appeal and neighbouring buildings. Although this wall would be removed, it would be replaced with an extension that would have a greater height. I note the extension would have a simple form and gable design that reflects that of the host building, and the reference to the pitched roof form being preferable over a flat roof structure. However, given the extension’s size and projection further forward than the existing front of the appeal property, it would appear as an incongruous addition. 8. The Appellant considers the side extension will help define the building in its own right, but it would bring the appeal dwelling and the neighbouring property closer together, leading to a reduction in the spaciousness of the area. In this regard, I consider the extension as a form of development to be distinct from a wall, as it has a volume and mass which would give a greater presence of built form. 9. I therefore conclude that this element of the development would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the host property, and would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. This would be contrary to Policies BDP1 and BDP20 of the Bromsgrove District Plan, which seek, amongst other matters, to sustain and enhance the significance of heritage assets. It would also be contrary to 1 APP/P1805/W/17/3169734 Appeal Decision APP/P1805/D/17/3192038 3 Section 12 of the Framework, which seeks to conserve or enhance the historic environment. 10. The Council raise no objection to the effect of the other elements of the development, including the front porch on the character and appearance of the host property or the Conservation Area. I have no reason to take a contrary view. 11. In relation to designated heritage assets, Paragraph 134 of the Framework indicates that where there would be harm that is less than substantial, as in this case, it must be weighed against the public benefits of the proposals. I note the reference to the planning permission for the appeal site to be used as a separate residential unit and that this proposal seeks to make efficient use of the site by enabling provision of two family sized dwellings. The removal of the garage door and alterations to the existing ground floor of the appeal building would also make a positive contribution to the streetscene. Whilst I recognise these benefits, I do not consider they would outweigh the harm that I have identified to the Conservation Area. It would therefore not be the form of sustainable development that the Framework sets out a presumption in favour of. 12. The Appellant has stated that the appeal dwelling has not had its Permitted Development rights removed and that the appeal scheme offers a better opportunity to extend the property to a more appropriate design. I have not however been provided with specific details of such a Permitted Development scheme, and can confirm that I have considered the development proposal on its own merits. 13. The access to the site and the private amenity space would remain unchanged from the development previously approved on appeal. There would also be no harmful effects on the living conditions of surrounding neighbours. These are however neutral considerations and not benefits of the appeal proposal. Conclusion 14. For the reasons given above and having considered all other matters raised, including the Appellant’s efforts to continue to negotiate with the Council, the accessible location of the site close to the railway station and local services, and the appeal or neighbouring sites not being listed, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. F Rafiq INSPECTOR