Appeal 6002236

The appeal is dismissed.

The acceptability of the first-floor rear extension forming part of the appeal is not contested by the Council. I have no reason to consider otherwise so my decision has focused on the areas that are contested.

The main issue of the appeal is the effect of the increase in height of the roof and proposed hip to gable roof extension on the character and appearance of [site address] and the surrounding area.

The appeal site comprises a two-storey detached dwelling with a hipped roof. The property has a gable end feature to the front elevation and has been extended previously.

The appeal site sits in a residential area, where the majority of the properties are of the same period utilising similar materials. There is a degree of variation in architectural design on [address], however hipped roofs are a dominant characteristic. The consistent use of hipped roofs reduces the massing of the rows of houses and adds to the spacious suburban feel of the street scene.

The proposal seeks to increase the height of the roof and convert the existing hipped roof to a gable roof. [name]: [name] and Working Places City Manual 2022 in City Note LW-18 advises against hipped to gable roof extensions unless it has been demonstrated there would be no character harm.

Though the increase in height of the proposal is modest, in combination with the change of roof design it would enlarge the massing of the dwelling, making it appear considerably bulkier in comparison to neighbouring properties at detriment to the street scene. The dwelling also sits considerably further forward than [address], such that when travelling down [address] towards the junction with [address], the changes would be visually prominent. The proposed alterations to the roof would result in a design that would not be reflective of the predominant character of the area and would appear incongruous.

For these reasons, the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the appeal site and surrounding area. Consequently, it would conflict with Policy PG3 [name] of the Birmingham Development Plan 2017, which seeks that development is of a high design quality, and takes into consideration local context.

The Council have also referenced Policy DM2 Amenity of the Development Management in Birmingham – Development Plan Document 2021 in the reasons for refusal. This policy is primarily in relation to the protection of living conditions and as such I have not found it determinative in relation to the issue of character and appearance.

In support of the application, I have been referred to several other developments in the local area, including hipped to gable roof extensions, however, I saw on my site visit that these are in the minority. I also do not have the full details of whether these developments obtained planning permission or otherwise, including what policies applied at the time of their consideration. In any case, I have determined the appeal on its own merits.

My attention has also been drawn by the appellant to consideration the proposal is sustainable development in relation to the relevant sections of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). There would be some modest economic and social benefits associated with the proposed development, however due to the proposals scale this only attracts limited weight. The Framework also seeks that development should be sympathetic to local character, and I have found harm in this regard.

It has also been raised by the appellant that there are no neighbouring objections. The lack of local objection is a neutral factor in the determination of the appeal. My role is to objectively determine the appeal, and I have found harm with regards to character and appearance.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and there are no material considerations raised that outweigh the conflict. For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.