Appeal 6001626

The appeal is dismissed.

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.

An application for costs was made by Moja Grill Ltd against Birmingham City Council. This application is the subject of a separate Decision.

I saw during my site visit that development similar to the scheme subject of this appeal had been carried out, but with different railings and entrance points. Nevertheless, I am determining the appeal on the basis of the submitted plans, as that is what has been applied for and has been subject to public consultation.

The Council’s decision notice cites [name] 2 of the [name] (2022) (the BDG). However, the Council has acknowledged that the quoting of this was an error, and that Principle 3 of the BDG should have been quoted instead as the relevant principle to the development. I accept the explanation from the Council, and I am satisfied that this error has not caused prejudice to either party. I have determined the appeal on the basis of this clarification.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on; • The character and appearance of the host property and area; and, • Pedestrian accessibility and movement.

The appeal site comprises a two-storey property on [site address] , close to its junction with [address] and [address]. The ground floor operates as a restaurant with residential accommodation above, an arrangement which reflects the general pattern of commercial uses below residential within the surrounding [site address] streetscene. The property forms part of a parade of attached premises, all of which are uniformly set back from the pavement behind a deep and largely open forecourt, with the only exception being a slight, open canopy-type structure.

An enclosed decked area would be constructed over most of the site’s forecourt. Although the decking itself would be of a modest height, the installation’s overall scale, design and position close to the highway junction would result in it appearing as a highly conspicuous new feature within the streetscene.

Owing to the considerable depth of its forward projection over the forecourt, the development would disrupt the cohesive building line shared by the adjacent premises. Furthermore, its partially enclosed form would appear incongruous when set against the openness that characterises the forecourt space along the parade. As a result, and notwithstanding the limited height of the railings, the installation would read as an unsympathetic addition to the building that fails to respect its context.

I saw at my site visit numerous examples of front decking enclosures along [site address] , including those highlighted by the appellant. [name] accept that some are of a similar design to the appeal development, none of these installations evidently have permission or share the same context as the appeal site. Moreover, their existence as inharmonious features within the streetscene that interrupt the prevailing open character of building frontages reaffirms my assessment of the harmful impact of the appeal development.

The contention that the scheme would be reversible carries limited weight, as its physical presence would nonetheless result in a harmful alteration to the character and appearance of both the appeal property and the surrounding area while it was in place. Furthermore, there is no substantive evidence before me that it is only intended to be in place for a temporary or fixed period.

For these reasons, I find that the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host property and area. Consequently, it would conflict with Policy PG3 of the Birmingham Development Plan 2031 (2017) (the BDP) which states that all new development will be expected to demonstrate high design quality, contributing to a strong sense of place, and that development should respond to site conditions and the local area context.

It would also fail to comply with Principle 3 of the BDG, which seeks that development positively acknowledges, enhances and interacts with its surrounding public realm and paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), which seeks that development adds to the quality of its area and maintains a strong sense of place.

The Council’s decision notice additionally cites Policy DM2 of the Development Management in Birmingham Development Plan Document (2021). However, this policy relates to amenity, and I have not been directed to any part of it directly relevant to the issue of character and appearance. It has therefore not been determinative.

The footway in front of the site is of reasonable width; however existing bollards constrain movement immediately in front of the site. Given the substantial depth of the proposed enclosed structure, which would project to a point close to the bollards, it would markedly reduce the space available for pedestrians to pass the appeal property. Consequently, whilst it would not encroach onto the highway, it would introduce a large obstacle across what was previously an open frontage. This would add visual and physical clutter to the functional public realm and diminish the ease of pedestrian movement.

The appellant contends that the proposal would contribute to an active frontage. Given that it would obstruct what was previously an open and freely accessible space, this being a key characteristic of the parade to which it is a part, I am not persuaded by this argument. I have also not been directed to any specific local or national policy or guidance that would support such a form of development.

Accordingly, I find that the proposal would have a harmful effect on pedestrian accessibility and movement. It therefore conflicts with Policy PG3 of the BDP which states that development should ensure external spaces are inclusive and provide environments that encourage people to walk. In addition, the scheme is contrary to City Notes SS-1 and SS-4 of the BDG, which have similar aims.

I note that third parties have raised further concerns with regard to the scheme’s impact upon the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, parking, air-quality and an increased risk of anti-social behaviour. However, given my findings on the main issues, there has been no need to consider these matters further.

I appreciate that the Framework provides support for the scheme insofar as it supports economic growth and local businesses. However, it has not been demonstrated how the proposal contributes to commercial viability, or that the business would be harmed without it. Consequently, any economic benefits are not of sufficient weight to overcome the Framework’s overarching requirements in respect of good design, which the scheme fails to satisfy. The appellant also refers to the National Design Guide (NDG) as supporting the development. However, the Framework indicates that the NDG should inform decisions only where locally produced design guides or design codes are absent. As the Council has adopted a [name], the NDG is not directly applicable in this case.

I acknowledge the appellant’s frustration with the Council’s handling of the application, including what it describes as a lack of proactive engagement. However, my decision must be based solely on the merits of the case and assessed in line with the development plan for the area and any other material considerations.

The proposed development conflicts with the development plan and there are no material considerations, including the Framework, that would outweigh that conflict. It is for this reason and having had regard to all other matters raised that I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.