Erection of a single storey side extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 7 December 2018 by Gary Deane BSc (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 20th December 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/P4605/D/18/3213879 33 Moor Pool Avenue, Birmingham B17 9HL • 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 Peter Sawyer against the decision of Birmingham City Council. • The application Ref 2018/06610/PA was refused by notice dated 21 September 2018. • The development proposed is the erection of a single storey side extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the local area. Reasons 3. The appeal property is a mainly 2-storey semi-detached dwelling that is located within the Moor Pool Conservation Area (CA). The CA is predominantly residential in character within which buildings often stand behind modest-sized front gardens and face onto tree-lined streets that are relatively narrow with grass verges. These features all positively contribute to an attractive streetscape that has a welcome sense of enclosure and a semi-rural feel. 4. The appeal dwelling is one of a group of similar dwellings that address the same side of Moor Pool Avenue. Unifying features of these buildings include their common design, broadly symmetrical pattern of fenestration, front and side gables, chimneystacks and an elevated position to the road. While there are some notable differences within this group, such as 29 Moor Pool Avenue with its single storey side projection, the prevailing character when seen from the road is one of unity and cohesion, which is locally distinctive. 5. While No 33 has been extended and externally altered at the rear, the appeal dwelling appears to largely retain its original form and character when viewed from the highway. It typifies the style and qualities of the properties within this part of the CA and adds to the sense of cohesion in the frontage built form along Moor Pool Avenue. Consequently, the appeal dwelling is a positive contributor to the character and appearance of the CA. 6. The proposal is to erect a single storey extension at the side of No 33. The new addition would be modest in height and set well back from the main front Appeal Decision APP/P4605/D/18/3213879 2 wall. It would be simple in design with a pitched roof to tie in with the existing rear addition and external materials to match those of the host building. 7. Nevertheless, the new built form would be a new and prominent feature of the completed dwelling. Given the angle of view and the width of the pair to which No 33 belongs, any disruption to the symmetry of these buildings would not be evident from any single vantage point along Moor Pool Avenue. The proposal would, however, noticeably alter the size and shape of the original building, setting it apart from most others within the same group. When viewed from the road, just to one side of the site, the new extension would draw the eye because it would disrupt the established pattern of existing development and cohesion that generally unifies the group. In doing so, the proposal would appear as a discordant and uncharacteristic intrusion that would detract from the character and appearance of the built frontage along Moor Pool Avenue. 8. At the site visit, I saw some examples of later additions to original buildings elsewhere in the CA including No 29. However, these developments have not compromised the character or appearance of the CA, to such a degree that would justify an unsatisfactory extension, as proposed. In any event, each proposal should be assessed on its own merits, as I have done in this case. 9. The proposal would therefore fail to preserve the character and appearance of the CA. The harm to the CA would be less than substantial but there are no public benefits to weigh against it. 10. On the main issue, I conclude that the proposed development would materially harm the character and appearance of the local area. As such, it conflicts with Policies PG3 and TP12 of the Birmingham Development Plan. These policies aim to ensure that new development demonstrates a high design quality, contributes to a strong sense of place and, in conservation areas, to the asset’s conservation while protecting or enhancing it significance. 11. There would also be a conflict with the Framework with regard to the protection of heritage assets such as conservation areas, and with the statutory duty. This duty requires special attention to be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas. 12. The extension, once complete, would provide additional living space that would enhance the living conditions of the appellant. The Council has confirmed that the proposal would comply with the 45-degree code and the numerical guidelines contained within its supplementary planning documents. Others raise no objection. However, these matters do not outweigh the significant harm that I have identified. Conclusion 13. For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Gary Deane INSPECTOR