Erection of an upper storey extension, comprising two additional bedrooms and en-suite w.c

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 20 April 2021 by J P Longmuir BA (Hons) DipUD MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 6 May 2021 Appeal Ref: APP/P1805/D/21/3266821 118 Birmingham Road, Alvechurch, B48 7TE • 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 Tom Poynton against the decision of Bromsgrove District Council. • The application Ref 20/00829/FUL, dated 19 July 2020, was refused by notice dated 21 October 2020. • The development proposed is the erection of an upper storey extension, comprising two additional bedrooms and en-suite w.c. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of an upper storey extension, comprising two additional bedrooms and en-suite w.c. at 118 Birmingham Road, Alvechurch, B48 7TE in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 20/00829/FUL, dated 19 July 2020, subject to the following conditions: (1) The development shall be started by 3 years from the date of this decision notice. (2) The development hereby approved shall be implemented in accordance with the existing and proposed drawing A-L-105 dated 28.05.20. Main Issues 2. The main issues are: • whether the proposed extension would result in a disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original building so as to be inappropriate in the West Midlands Green Belt for the purposes of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and the development plan policy and; • whether the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the original dwelling and the locality. Reasons Green Belt 3. The site and the surroundings are wholly within the West Midlands Green Belt. Paragraph 145 of the Framework states that development would not be inappropriate for the extension or alteration of a building provided that it does Appeal Decision APP/P1805/D/21/3266821 2 not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. 4. Policy BDP4 Bromsgrove District Plan (DP) has a policy of limiting accumulative extensions to 40% of the original house within the Green Belt. 5. The existing dwelling is two storey with a recently completed ground floor extension to the side. An earlier, circa 1970s, ground floor extension is to the rear. 6. The Council indicate that the extension would amount to an approximately 73.97% increase. However, the methodology has not been provided and the appellant quantifies the breakdown of the various extensions and calculates a 38.77% increase, which on the basis of the evidence submitted and the dwelling on site, is the more credible. The proposed extension and the previous ones would not result in a disproportionate sized dwelling. 7. The resulting dwelling would not also appear bulky or dominating so as to spoil the sense of openness of the area. The extension being above an existing single storey would block out sky rather than any meaningful aspect to a view. The extension would not create a sense of enclosure as it is a very small component of the street scene. In spatial and visual terms the proposal would not undermine the openness of the Green Belt. 8. Policy BDP4 of the DP also seeks to maintain the openness of the Green Belt. The Council’s High Quality Design SPD highlights the need for extensions to take into account the Green Belt. The Alvechurch Parish Neighbourhood Plan (NP) also mentions the need to maintain openness. The proposal would not be in conflict with these policies or the Framework. 9. I therefore conclude that the proposal would not be inappropriate development within the Green Belt. Character and appearance 10. Alvechurch is a satellite village for Birmingham and the site is on a wide connecting through road. The M42 viaduct is clearly visible from the appeal site, and similarly audible. 11. Opposite the appeal site (on the west side of Birmingham Road) is a continuous frontage of houses. The appeal site contains one of two long established dwellings on this east side of the road. However, there is a large new development at Rectory Gardens, of 20 houses, almost adjacent but extending beyond the line of the appeal house. The NP states this was completed in 2016. 12. The appeal site includes a house which is typically early twentieth century. It has a characteristic projecting gable from the roof, arched doorway and chimney. The proposal would build over the existing side extension but would do so by simply extending the existing roof. A small eaves line gable would give an acknowledgement to the main gable but would appear subservient. The resulting elevation would be balanced and representative of the house’s era. 13. At the rear the extension would connect with the earlier extension and help unify the elements. The footprint of the dwelling is not being increased and the elevational changes would be seen in the context of a large garden. The proposed materials would match the existing too. Appeal Decision APP/P1805/D/21/3266821 3 14. I therefore conclude that the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the area. 15. Policy BDP19 of the DP requires high quality design which enhances the character and appearance of the local area. The SPD requires extensions enhance and protect the dwelling, taking into account subservience, materials and massing. Policy H4 of the NP requires proposals respond to and reflect the local setting by way of height, scale, spacing, layout, design and materials. The proposal would not be in conflict. Planning Balance 16. Paragraph 133 of the Framework states that the Government attaches great importance to Green Belts. Thus, when considering any planning application, substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt. That is a high hurdle to overcome and the above paragraph confirms that the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and permeance. In this appeal I have found no harm to the Green Belt by way of inappropriateness and to its openness. Similarly, I have found no harm to the character and appearance of the area. Conditions 17. Paragraph 55 of the Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance provide the tests for the imposition of conditions. The Council has suggested conditions. The timing and approved plans conditions help certainty. The application forms and plans indicate that materials would match the existing and so such a condition is not necessary. The Council recommend a condition that removes permitted development rights to protect the Green Belt. However, removal of these rights is only justified in exceptional cases not as a generic blanket, and such an approach if warranted would be implicit in the Framework. Moreover, such permitted development alterations can only be very modest and not disproportionate. Conclusion 18. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be allowed. John Longmuir INSPECTOR