Appeal 6002329

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.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on a) the character and appearance of the area with particular regard to the Moseley Conservation Area (MCA); b) highway safety with particular regard to the installation of gates; c) the living conditions of the occupiers of Number [address] (No 63) with specific regard to outlook, light and privacy.

The appeal building is a detached dwelling sitting centrally in its plot with a well-established front garden and parking and a large elongated rear garden. It appears to have been extended in the past but primarily retains its Arts and Crafts architectural styling. The roof forms on the dwelling are consistent and any instances of dormers whilst they are not uncommon are limited and as such very recessive as a design feature overall. The existing windows are proportionate with the building and commensurate with its size and natural hierarchy, getting smaller as they move into the upper floors.

Surrounding dwellings on this side of the busy road follow this pattern in their detachment and Arts and Crafts or [name] style. They are obviously prestigious in character notwithstanding their variances in design and scale. The significance of the dwelling derives from its collection as a group and their large and obvious frontage presence along the street scene. Notwithstanding it is not statutorily or locally listed. Moreover, the setback front gardens and the instances of trees and green hedging are an important verdant contribution to the character of the MCA. Despite the busy throughfare road, the features described together add to a strong character and consistency which contributes positively to the historical and architectural significance of the set of dwellings and by association MCA.

The proposed two storey rear extension and dormer window by virtue of its roof style and siting would obscure an important part of the rear of the dwelling. It would erode the appearance of the natural eaves point and detract from the natural hierarchy of the building’s openings. Whilst there are some limited instances of hipped roof, this proposal would be large and obtrusive detracting from the original style of the building. I am not sufficiently convinced that the scale of the windows is necessary to achieve the desired outcome. The matter of matching materials would sit comfortably with the dwelling, but their use would not successfully mitigate the harm I have found.

The matter of the dormer’s incongruous scale is not overcome by the fact it is to the rear of the property. The flat roof and scaling to the eaves would be prominent and detract from the largely open roof plane to the rear elevation. There are some instances of flat roof dormers, however they are proportionate, reflective and respective of the main roofscape.

The appellant has recommended further discussions to mitigate and implement new planting; however, the appeal process is not a way of amending and altering a scheme. I would not be satisfied that a relevant worded condition could overcome the harm notwithstanding the areas of concern to the rear of the dwelling. Moreover, the appellant contends that many of the works could be undertaken under the permitted development regime, however by their own admission, they state that they can’t under the Article 4 direction and that the dwelling is located within the MCA. It would therefore mean that the scheme would need planning permission as has been applied for.

Section 72 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 sets out that special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a Conservation Area, for buildings or land therein. The Framework places emphasis on great weight being given to an asset’s conservation and, by virtue of the above assessment, there would be some harm to the MCA in a failure to either preserve or enhance its character or appearance. Due to the scale of the proposed development, the harm would be to the lower end of less than substantial. This should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

It would secure an improved long term family home, along with enabling viable use of the building. However, I have not been provided with any evidence to suggest that the proposal relies on securing the future use of the building seeing as it would remain as a residential dwelling. Therefore, I only give limited weight to this public benefit. Overall, the public benefits provided would be limited and it is sufficiently clear, given the above, that they would not outweigh the great weight given to the conservation of the MCA.

As such, there would be conflict with Policies PG3 and TP12 of the Birmingham Development Plan 2017 (BDP), Policy DM2 of the Development Management in Birmingham 2021 (DPD), Birmingham Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document 2021 and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Together, these seek to ensure that development proposals are of a high-quality design and conserve the historic environment, amongst other things.

The front garden is already used for parking and many of the dwellings follow this pattern in which pedestrians would be aware of this existing situation. The road is a busy route which links to the city with a high volume of vehicles observed during the site visit at varying speeds.

The proposed gates would be in line with the existing brick wall and directly adjacent the pathway with no setback. I have limited information on how the gates would function, whether they would be electronic or manual. Resultantly, there is a likelihood that the vehicle parking at the property would either be waiting in the road or waiting on the pathway to enter if they were closed. This would block the free flow of traffic for a period of time, which could result in a vehicle trying to overtake the stationary vehicle in an unsafe manner. Moreover, it would block the pavement for that period of time in which a pedestrian would not be able to go around or cross to the other side of the road given the high volumes of traffic experienced.

An appropriately worded condition on the details of the placement of the gates would not resolve the concerns raised in terms of highway safety given the changes required. Their effect, not knowing how they might be designed or function, would need to be considered appropriately as part of due process. I am not therefore sufficiently convinced that the proposed gates would not result in a highway safety issue through unacceptably inhibiting the free flow of traffic or obstructing/causing a danger to pedestrians. Therefore, the proposal would not comply with Policies PG3 and TP27 of the BDP.

No 63 is directly adjacent the appeal property with the proposed two storey extension sitting on the footprint of the existing conservatory but bringing the side elevation to be in line with the rest of the building and bringing the built form closer than currently experienced. It would present as a large sheer elevation on the boundary of the two buildings with a small separation gap between.

The experience of the space served by the ground floor window of No 63 facing towards the appeal property would be a negative one in such they would view either a large ground floor window or an upper sheer elevation with no visual interest. It would appear as looming and oppressive and lead to a poorer quality outlook than the current situation. The window to No 63 has been placed there intentionally. The presence of the additional rear facing window doesn’t sufficiently lessen its importance in affording views out of the concerned internal space and the experience thereof. Whilst there is a slight variance in the rear elevations terminating, the impact of the two-storey element would be a negative one and harmfully reduce the occupier’s outlook and resultant light experienced.

The reason for refusal references the impact of the proposal on privacy of the occupiers but has not been detailed further within the [name]. I have no reason to consider the matter further. If the effect of the scheme on the privacy of occupiers of N 63 was acceptable in this respect, the harms I have found on other living conditions matters would remain.

Resultantly, the proposal would cause harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of No 63 in terms of loss of light and outlook. It would therefore conflict with Policies PG3 and TP27 of the BDP, Birmingham Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document 2022, Policy DM2 of the DPD and the Framework. These seek, amongst other things, to ensure the living conditions of occupiers are considered appropriately and protected from harm.

The appellant raises their concerns with the inaccuracies of the Council in their reporting referencing elements which are not there. I do not appear to have found any instances of this. Be this as it may, the Council is clear in the refusal reasons, and any errors have not altered the outcome or the assessment made. Additional issues regarding these concerns should be taken up directly with the Council.

The scheme would conflict with the development plan for the reasons I have set out. Material considerations do not indicate a decision other than in accordance. I therefore 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.