Appeal 3276421

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of two storey side & single storey rear extensions at [site address] , [site address] Olton, Birmingham [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2021/02772/PA, dated 26 March 2021, subject to the following

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved drawings: Site Plan; D03 [name] ([name]); and D04 [name] ([name]).

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development shall match those used in the existing building.

I have used the Council’s description of development as this more accurately describes the development proposed.

Since determination of the planning application, the 2019 iteration of the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) has been superseded. I am satisfied that the updates to the Framework do not materially affect its content insofar as it is relevant to the main issue of this appeal. I have therefore determined this appeal with regard to the current version, published in July 2021.

The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the appeal property and the surrounding area.

The appeal property comprises a semi-detached dwelling located on a corner plot at the junction of [address] and Flint Green Road. The property has a hipped roof, and front projecting gable with bay windows below, which mirrors the frontage of the neighbouring property. Whilst the appeal property has been extended to the side, the adjoining neighbour has been extended more substantially at the side, which provides an imbalance between the pair of dwellings. This is particularly the case at roof level, as the hipped roof of no. 1014 extends across the whole of the dwelling, whereas the hipped roof over the appeal dwelling only extends as far as the front gable. This mismatch between the two detracts from the street scene.

The proposed development would incorporate a two-storey side extension to the dwelling. The extension would have a hipped roof which would be stepped down from the main roof ridge. Its front elevation would also be stepped back from the main frontage of the dwelling. These factors ensure that the extension would integrate effectively with the main bulk of the dwelling, whilst still appearing subservient. The extension would also help remedy the imbalance between the appeal dwelling and the adjoining neighbour, as the main bulk of the hipped roof would be extended to mirror the adjoining the neighbour. This would allow the two properties to integrate more effectively with one another, which would improve the street scene along [address].

The appeal property already projects substantially forward from the frontages of the properties along Flint Green Road. However, the rear garden to the appeal property ensures that this projection forward does not appear overly prominent, as there is sufficient space separating the rear of the appeal property and the closest property behind. As such, there is no clear visual link between the appeal dwelling and the properties owing to any shared or coherent building line. This means the side extension could be accommodated without leading to an unacceptable discordance with the properties to the rear.

The property boundaries around the corner plots at the junction of [address] and Flint Green Road are tapered, which leaves substantial areas of pavement at each side of the junction. Any openness of the junction is primarily derived from these sections of pavement. Given that the development would not interfere with these areas, the openness of the junction would be largely be preserved. In any event, there are examples of properties on corner plots at other junctions along [address] which have been extended up to their side boundary, including a property at the junction of [address] and Greswolde Park Road, which means the extension in this instance would be commensurate with others in the vicinity.

For these reasons, I am satisfied that the development would not harm the character and appearance of the host property, nor of the surrounding area. The development would therefore be consistent with Policy PG3 of the Birmingham Plan 2031 and saved paragraphs 3.14C-D of the Birmingham Unitary Development Plan 2005, which together seek to ensure new development achieves high quality design which responds properly to local context in terms of topography, street patterns, building lines, scale and massing. The development would also be consistent with the [name] SPD1, which seeks to ensure extensions appear subservient to the host 1 [name], [name], March 2007 dwelling, and respect the pattern of development in the area. Finally, the development would reflect the design objectives of the Framework (2021).

I have included a plans condition to ensure certainty over the development permitted. I have also included a condition requiring the external materials to match those of the existing dwelling to ensure the development integrates seamlessly with the original property.

For the reasons given above, and having considered the development plan as a whole, the approach in the Framework, and all other relevant material considerations, the appeal should be allowed.