Two storey front extension, two storey side and rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 21 April 2026 by L Clark MSc MRTPI Decision by John Morrison BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 1st May 2026 Appeal Ref: 6006356 173 Hamstead Road, Handsworth B20 2RL • 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 M. Zahid against the decision of Birmingham City Council. • The application Ref is 2025/04039/PA. • The development proposed is a two storey front extension, two storey side and rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a two storey front extension, two storey side and rear extension at 173 Hamstead Road, Handsworth B20 2RL in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2025/04039/PA subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos 003, 004, 005 and the OS Plan Black/White. 3) No development above ground level shall take place until details of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extensions hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 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. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the area. Reasons for the Recommendation 4. The appeal site is a large, detached dwelling in a row of others set back from and facing the road with a parking area to the front. The area is predominantly residential with a range of house types of varying designs close to the appeal site. Some of these have similar architectural features as the appeal building but there is not a sense of defining uniformity between them. The appeal property is Appeal Decision 6006356 2 substantially smaller than the Victorian terrace that is situated alongside the dwelling. 5. The proposal would remove the existing gable frontages and cat slide roof, but the overall height of the dwelling would be similar. The front extension would extend into the existing parking area and would be in line with the Victorian terrace. The rear alterations would not extend further back than the rear wall of Number 175 Hamstead Road (No.175). 6. The property benefits from ample outdoor space to the front and rear and therefore the extensions would fit comfortably within the plot. The scale of the proposals would not be prominent within the street scene due to the much larger scale of some of the surrounding properties. The proposal would make extensive alterations to the dwelling that would change its appearance entirely however I remain to be convinced that such would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area. 7. The appeal property and No.175 have some similar architectural features however they have an apparent difference in appearance due to their material palettes and roof type. Furthermore, there is mature hedging on the border between the two properties, which reinforces their distinction from each other. They do not read sufficiently clearly as a pair. There would thus not be an imbalance created as a result of the proposal and the building would not be unacceptably dominant when viewed alongside No. 175 from the street. 8. The proposal would not therefore cause harm to the character and appearance of the area and would comply with Policy PG3 of the Birmingham Development Plan 2017 which is concerned with local area context amongst other things. Policy DM2 of the Development Management in Birmingham Development Plan Document 2021 is concerned with amenity of neighbours which is not a contentious matter in this appeal. Other Matter 9. I have not been directed to the specific part of the Birmingham Design Guide Healthy Living and Working Places City Manual September 2022 that the Council has based their decision upon. The proposal may not strictly comply with all of its aspects; however, and for the reasons I have set out above, the overall design would reflect the scale and style of the house and its surroundings which would be in accordance with the general thrust of the document’s aims. Conditions 10. Other than the standard time limit condition, it is necessary to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans for enforcement purposes. A condition should be imposed to agree the details of proposed materials. On the submitted plans, there is an annotation that the proposal would incorporate brickwork to match existing however the existing property is rendered. Further information should therefore be provided in this regard. It would be sufficient for that to be agreed prior to any development above ground level taking place. Appeal Decision 6006356 3 Conclusion and Recommendation 11. For the reasons given above, the appeal scheme would comply with the development plan and there is nothing compelling to suggest a decision other than in accordance. I therefore recommend that the appeal should be allowed. L Clark APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 12. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed. Planning permission is therefore granted, subject to the conditions set out above. John Morrison INSPECTOR