First floor side extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 20 August 2019 by R Cooper BSc (Hons) MCD MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 17th September 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/P4605/D/19/3230625 92 Brockhurst Road, Hodge Hill, Birmingham B36 8JD • 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 S Hussain against the decision of Birmingham City Council. • The application Ref 2018/10332/PA, dated 7 December 2018, was refused by notice dated 1 April 2019. • The development proposed is a first floor side extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the first floor side extension on the character and appearance of the surrounding area, and the host dwelling. Reasons 3. The appeal site is a semi-detached dwelling, located on Brockhurst Road, a residential street characterised by semi-detached dwellings of a similar scale and appearance, which have distinctive gabled frontages with two storey bay windows. These features contribute to the prevailing character and appearance of the area. Along Brockhurst Road there is a consistent rhythm of spacing in between properties, which is interrupted by the appeal site which has a distinctively wider plot. This coincides with a subtle change in the appearance of the houses along the road and has the effect of making the appeal site stand out within the street scene. 4. The additional space to the side of the appeal property has been utilised by an existing large single storey side extension, which extends up to the boundary of the site. The proposal would be to construct a first floor extension above this existing side extension resulting in a large, two storey extension to the side of the property. The overall scale of the proposed extension combined with the existing, would result in an overly dominant and incongruous feature within the street scene, which would not respect the prevailing character and appearance of the area. 5. The proposed extension would have a lower ridge height than the existing roof, would be set back from the front elevation of the host dwelling and set off the boundary. However, due to the substantial width proposed at the first floor, and combined scale with the existing extension, the proposal would not appear Appeal Decision APP/P4605/D/19/3230625 2 subordinate; rather it would be dominant and would not respect the character and appearance of the host dwelling. 6. For these reasons the proposed extension would not respect the character and appearance of the surrounding area or of the host dwelling. The proposals do not accord with policy PG3 of the Birmingham Development Plan 2017 and saved policy 3.14 of the Birmingham Unitary Development Plan 2005 which collectively seek high quality design that respects the character of the local area. 7. Furthermore, the proposal conflicts with the Council’s Extending Your Home Supplementary Planning Document 2007 which seeks to ensure extensions are smaller than the main part of the house and not dominant in appearance. The guidance therefore offers no support for the proposal. 8. I have considered the appellants submission in relation to the presence of other similar extensions within the street. However, Brockhurst Road is a long street containing many houses, and these examples do not reflect the prevailing character of the area. I acknowledge that these may have been granted planning permission, although I am not aware of the full circumstances of each of these cases. Regardless of this, they do not provide any justification and I must consider this proposal on its own merits. 9. I also note amendments have been made to the scheme, that bricks would match the existing, and the proposed roof design to reflect the existing dwelling. However, these matters do not overcome the overriding harm the proposed scale would have to the character and appearance of the dwelling and the street scene. Conclusion 10. For the reasons identified above the appeal is dismissed. R Cooper INSPECTOR