Development proposed is: demolition of single storey timber garage, removal of tree and proposed two storey side and rear extension

1 Appeal Decision Site visit made on 20 June 2018 by Martin H Seddon BSc DipTP MPhil MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 3rd September 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/P4605/D/18/3201308 22 Raddlebarn Road, Bournville, Birmingham, B29 6HA  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 and Mrs Tom and Grete Drewett against the decision of Birmingham City Council.  The application Ref: 2017/10710/PA, dated 15 December 2017, was refused by notice dated 7 March 2018.  The development proposed is: demolition of single storey timber garage, removal of tree and proposed two storey side and rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues are the effect on the character and appearance of the building and the Bournville Village Conservation Area. Reasons 3. No.22 Raddlebarn Road is an end building of a terrace of 4 properties. It is part of a row of similar terraced and semi-detached dwellings which are stepped back from the road. There is a definite rhythm in the design and layout of the buildings and open plan frontages. There is a semi-mature tree near the front of the site of the proposed extension. The appeal building is within the Bournville Village Conservation Area. The Bournville Village Trust was established in 1900 by George Cadbury. The Conservation Area is an example of a planned estate with its own community facilities, open spaces and a range of buildings, mainly in informal patterns using traditional brick with good quality detailing. It is recognised as an inspiration for the garden city movement of the early 20th century. 4. The neighbouring terraced buildings at either side of No.22 generally lack side extensions. There are occasional side garages, but primarily there are gaps between the terraces providing a sense of spaciousness. The gaps and stepped back layout allow views of the end elevations of the terraces and their overhanging eaves with exposed rafter details. The proposed two storey side extension would be set back from the front elevation of the dwelling by around 5 metres and would be around 2.74 metres in width. It would be well designed and would use matching materials and detailing. However, it would be visible from Raddlebarn Road and would appear as an uncharacteristic addition to the building within the context of neighbouring properties that have not been extended to the side. It would detract from the overall rhythm and symmetry Appeal Decision APP/P4605/D/18/3201308 2 of the architecture of the terrace and street scene. It would conflict with Birmingham Development Plan policy PG3 regarding the need for new development to reinforce a sense of place and local distinctiveness, saved paragraphs 3.14C-D of the Birmingham Unitary Development Plan concerning design, and with the objectives of the Bournville Village Conservation Area Design Guide. 5. In respect of Conservation Areas, statutory requirements of Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 require that special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area. The revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) indicates that when considering the impact of a proposal on the significance of designated heritage assets, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation and that significance can be harmed or lost through development within their setting. 6. I consider that the proposal would not be in keeping with the original architecture of the buildings in this part of Raddlebarn Road. Even though other dwellings have been extended elsewhere, it would harm the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. However, because there is already a garage that would be demolished I consider that the proposal would result in less than substantial harm to the significance of the Conservation Area as a designated heritage asset. The Framework indicates that where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use. However, the benefit from the proposal would be mainly private, rather than public and would not outweigh the harm to the Bournville Village Conservation Area that would result. The proposal would conflict with Local Development Plan policy TP12 which concerns heritage and would conflict with the heritage objectives of the Framework. Other Considerations 7. The appellant has drawn my attention to two-storey side extensions Nos.1 and 10 Willow Road and No.32 Elm Road. A two-storey side and rear extension was also allowed on appeal at No.54 Raddlebarn Road but the building was located next to a larger nursing home building. However, these examples are not seen immediately in conjunction with the appeal building and are insufficient reason to justify harmful development at the appeal site. I have determined this appeal based upon the individual merits of the proposal and its particular site circumstances having regard to relevant development plan policies and all other material considerations. Conclusion 8. I have taken all other matters raised into account. For the reasons given above the appeal is dismissed. Martin H Seddon INSPECTOR