Erection of detached single storey garage to front

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 29 January 2026 by A Morrison MTCP MRTPI Decision by David M H Rose BA(Hons) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 31st March 2026 Appeal Ref: 6001446 2 Metchley Park Road, Birmingham B15 2PG • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr Gurmail Gakhal against the decision of Birmingham City Council. • The application Ref is 2025/04814/PA. • The development proposed is erection of detached single storey garage to front. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal Procedure 2. The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal. Preliminary Matter 3. The description in the banner heading above has been taken from the decision notice and accurately describes the appeal scheme. Main Issue 4. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons for the Recommendation 5. The appeal site comprises a large, detached dwelling positioned on a prominent corner plot adjacent to a roundabout within a well-established residential area of Birmingham. The appeal property has an integral garage and is set well back from its front boundary onto Metchley Park Road, which is defined by the combination of a low wall, fence and hedge. Development in the surrounding area mainly consists of large, detached dwellings which are similarly set comfortably back from the road, commonly behind low walls and hedges. Garages or other outbuildings are not features of front gardens, and their widespread absence contributes to the area’s positively consistent pattern of development and spacious character. 6. Beyond the rear of the site is the boundary of Edgbaston Conservation Area. The site is not visible from the conservation area, and it appears that the property makes no contribution to its setting by virtue of its separation and lack of historic significance. Appeal Decision 6001446 2 7. The proposed garage, which includes a games room to the rear, would be sited between the dwelling and the roundabout. By virtue of this forward positioning within the plot, the proposal would be at odds with the regular pattern of development in the area. 8. The building would be set into the existing ground level and would be partially screened by the front boundary fence and hedge. Nevertheless, its pitched roof and associated side gable end facing the road would be clearly apparent above and immediately behind this boundary treatment. The combination of this pronounced height and substantial depth, together with an inharmonious siting, would therefore give rise to a harmfully discordant feature within the streetscene. Due to its prominent location beside the roundabout, the building would be seen from numerous surrounding viewpoints, from which its harmful contrast with the area’s spacious character would be evident. 9. I appreciate that the Council has approved an application for a flat roof building of the same footprint as the proposal before me. This approval resulted from a dismissed appeal in 2025 (Ref: APP/P4605/D/25/3358417), within which a favourable assessment was made of a flat roof design on the basis that the resulting building would be level in height with the boundary treatments and thus hardly seen in public views, together with an acknowledgment of its subservient scale. The appellant contends that the proposed shallow pitched roof design would be more appropriate to the area’s architectural character and conservation setting than the approved flat roof alternative. 10. Neither of the two roof designs would be in keeping with the prevailing steeper angle of roof pitches in the area. The current proposal would also be subservient in scale to the host dwelling; crucially however, it would be much more visible than the approved lower flat roof building due to its projection above the fence and hedge. The fundamental incongruity of the appeal proposal’s siting to the character and appearance of the area would thus be more noticeable, such that the difference in height between the two schemes would not be minor in the circumstances. Accordingly, I am not persuaded that the approval of the flat roof design provides a compelling justification for harmful development at the appeal site. 11. For the above reasons, the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore conflict with Policy PG3 of the Birmingham Development Plan (2017) and Policy DM2 of the Development Management in Birmingham Development Plan Document (2021). Amongst other things, these policies seek that all new development will be expected to demonstrate high design quality contributing to a strong sense of place and local distinctiveness. The proposal would also be contrary to guidance set out within the Birmingham Design Guide Principles Document (2022), which seeks that residential extensions, including garages, complement the character of their surroundings. Similarly, by failing to respect local character, it would furthermore conflict with the objective of achieving well-designed places set out in paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework. Conclusion and Recommendation 12. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. Appeal Decision 6001446 3 Andrew Morrison APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 13. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. David MH Rose INSPECTOR