Single storey extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 2 May 2018 by N McGurk BSc (Hons) MCD MBA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 15TH May 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/P4605/D/18/3196382 2 Trenchard Close, Sutton Coldfield, B75 7QP  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 Mrs Sharon Hopkins against the decision of Birmingham City Council.  The application Ref 2017/10016/PA, dated 22 November 2017, was refused by notice dated 9 January 2018.  The development proposed is a single storey extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matter 2. A previous application1 for a single storey side and forward extension was refused. The Council notes that the application the subject of this appeal is the same as that previously refused. Main Issue 3. The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 4. The appeal property is a semi detached two storey dwelling with a small projecting front porch. It is located in prominent position, at the corner of Trenchard Close and St Chad’s Road, in a residential area. Surrounding properties comprise detached, semi detached and terraced two storey dwellings. 5. Houses in the area tend to be set back behind front gardens and/or parking areas, with gardens to the rear. This makes for a notably green and spacious environment, to which the appeal property makes a significant contribution due to the size and prominence of the garden to the front of the dwelling. 6. During my site visit I observed that a number of dwellings in the area have been extended and/or altered, and that such changes tend to appear in keeping with host properties and local character. I also noted that the appeal property 1 Ref: 2017/04535/PA. Appeal Decision APP/P4605/D/18/3196382 2 and its attached neighbour, No 4 Trenchard Close, appear in symmetry and that this contributes to an attractive sense of uniformity along Trenchard Close. 7. As well as extend the property to the side, the proposed development would project very considerably to the front of the appeal property. Whilst single storey, it would be of such a scale and mass that it would unduly dominate the front elevation of the host property, drawing attention to itself as a large and prominent feature. 8. The harmful impact of the above would be exacerbated as a result of the prominent position of the appeal property, such that the proposal would be widely visible in its surroundings. Its scale would be such that the proposal would severely erode the green and spacious garden to the front of the property, to the detriment of the qualities identified above. Furthermore, the proposal would also erode the symmetry between Nos 2 and 4 Trenchard Close, as well as the sense of uniformity in this area. 9. Taking all of the above into account, I consider that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area. This would be contrary to the Framework, to Birmingham Development Plan (2017) Policy PG3, to Birmingham Unitary Development Plan (2005) saved Paragraphs 3.14C-D and to the Council’s Extending Your Home Supplementary Planning Document, which together amongst other things, seek to protect local character. Conclusion 10.For the reasons given above, the appeal does not succeed. N McGurk INSPECTOR