Single-storey side extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 21 March 2019 by Mark Caine BSc (Hons) MTPL MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 2nd May 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/P4605/D/19/3221673 147 Ravenhurst Road, Birmingham, B17 9HR • 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 Manoj Brahmbhatt against the decision of Birmingham City Council. • The application Ref 2018/08741/PA, dated 26 October 2018, was refused by notice dated 21 December 2018. • The development proposed is a single-storey side extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural matters 2. The name of the applicant is given as Mr Manoj Brahmbhatt in the original planning application form, but the appellant’s details are specified as Mrs Parmjit Brahmbhatt in the submitted appeal form. However, an email has been submitted to confirm that Mr Manoj Brahmbhatt is the appellant and I have therefore used this name in the banner heading above. 3. The appellant queries whether the proposed side extension amounts to development for which planning permission is required. However, whether or not planning permission is required is not a matter for me to determine in the context of an appeal made under S78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. It is open to the appellant to apply for a determination under sections 191/192 of the Act to determine this matter, and any such application would be unaffected by my determination of this appeal. Main Issue 4. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the dwelling and the Moor Pool Conservation Area. Reasons 5. The appeal property is one of a pair of traditional semi-detached dwellings that is located in the predominantly residential Moor Pool Conservation Area. Appeal Decision APP/P4605/D/19/3221673 2 The topography of the area is such that it sits in a prominent raised position above the highway and the adjacent dwelling at 145 Ravenhurst Road. As a result of this and the curved alignment of the highway, the appeal dwelling’s gable elevation appears elevated and relatively exposed when approaching from the south. 6. I have been provided with limited information on the conservation area as a whole. Nonetheless, I consider its significance to derive from the spacious relatively green layout, and the varying sizes, yet uniformed design of the houses within it. Evidence put forward by both main parties suggests that this is indicative of ‘Arts and Craft’ principles and I have no reason to disagree. 7. The appeal site’s position on the inward curve of a bend results in the area between the gable elevation of the appeal dwelling and the shared boundary with No 145 being of an irregular shape as it tapers towards the rear. Although it would be offset from this tapered side boundary, the proposal would run parallel with it. As a result, the configuration of the extension would appear contrived and conflict with the simple form and design of the existing house. Its splayed alignment would also introduce a roof structure which would seem awkward and fail to correspond with the uniform and understated proportions of the host dwelling, which positively contribute to the significance of the conservation area. 8. I recognise that the adjoining property has been extended to the side at single-storey level. However, I noted on my site visit that the side elevation of this extension was not readily apparent in the street scene due to the close proximity and raised height of the neighbouring side extension at No 151. 9. The proposal would therefore not add to the symmetry and rhythm of the pair of semi-detached properties but would introduce an incongruous addition which would be poorly related in both form and character to the existing dwelling. Given its prominent elevated position, the adverse effect of the proposal would be clearly apparent from along Ravenhurst Road and a number of neighbouring properties. 10. As a result of these factors I find that the proposal would not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Moor Pool Conservation Area. 11. The harm that I have identified above would be relatively localised and thus, in the context of the wider conservation area, and in the parlance of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), would be less than substantial. There would, nevertheless, be real and serious harm which requires clear and convincing justification. Paragraph 196 of the Framework indicates that such harm is to be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. However, no public benefits associated with the proposal have been put forward to be weighed against this harm. 12. As such I conclude that the proposal would cause material harm to the character and appearance of the dwelling and the Moor Pool Conservation Area. As such it would conflict with Policies PG3 and TP12 of the Birmingham Development Plan 2017 and advice contained in the Framework. Amongst other matters, these require development to demonstrate high design quality and to contribute to a strong sense of place and, in conservation areas, to the asset’s conservation while protecting or enhancing its significance. Appeal Decision APP/P4605/D/19/3221673 3 13. In reaching my conclusions I have also had regard to the planning permissions, appeal decisions (Ref: APP/P4605/D/16/3161775 and APP/P4605/D/11/2143796) and the photographic evidence of other single-storey side extensions that the appellant has provided. However, these cases and examples relate to extensions that are not in such an elevated exposed location as the appeal proposal or have a different footprint or roof design. Regardless of whether these existing extensions replaced old extensions or poor quality garages prior to Moor Pool being designated as a conservation area, I do not consider them to be directly comparable to the appeal proposal. I have, in any case, reached my own conclusions on the appeal proposal based on the evidence before me and on its own planning merits. 14. For the reasons given above, I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Mark Caine INSPECTOR