Appeal 6002567

The appeal is dismissed.

I saw at my site visit that an extension of more or less the same size and form has been built here recently, though with different design details and materials than those shown on the application form and plans. These differences are not insignificant, including the use of steel framed glazed walls where the application form refers to a ‘timber gazebo’ with the plans showing smaller areas of glazing. I must assess this appeal on the basis of the submitted plans, as considered by the Council. This decision does not, therefore, deal with the as-built structure.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the inner courtyard of [site address] centre.

The appeal site is a curved ground floor unit, part of a set of modern 2 storey structures enclosing a circular courtyard. Most of the units here are restaurants. The appeal proposal is to fully enclose the area in front of the unit to provide indoor dining space. 2 other units have been similarly enclosed though with differing designs and materials. The Council advises that one of these does not have planning permission. Both look to be smaller and are in less visible positions than the appeal extension.

Another nearby restaurant unit has been partially enclosed with low walls and a roof structure, but remains open to the air. This more open design allows for a degree of social interaction between restaurant customers and people in the courtyard and helps to maintain the spaciousness of the public area. In contrast, a fully enclosed extension as proposed would cut the restaurant seating off from the courtyard, creating a less welcoming face to the unit and making the public space feel much more hemmed in. The appeal proposal is in an important position in this regard, occupying a large slice of the courtyard perimeter in a prominent location. I do not agree with the appellant that the other, less prominent front extensions have altered the character of the courtyard sufficiently to justify this particular proposal.

The proposed drawings show a fairly crudely designed structure with glazed panels set into timber cladding. It appears that the appellant had second and maybe third thoughts about this, as shown by the differences in the as-built structure and the statement in the Grounds of Appeal that the facing materials would be brickwork, metalwork and stonework. Timber walling, as actually proposed, is not used elsewhere in [site address] courtyard except maybe for low walls. The proposed extension would not reflect the architectural quality, materials or detailing of the main building.

I conclude that the proposal would significantly harm the character and appearance of the inner courtyard of [site address] centre by fully enclosing this key area with an unsympathetically designed extension. It therefore conflicts with policy PG3 of the Birmingham Development Plan, policy DM2 of the Development Management in Birmingham Development Plan Document, the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document Birmingham [name] and the National Planning Policy Framework, which taken together aim to secure high design quality that contributes to a strong sense of place, emphasising the importance of the way that people interact and move within and around a space.

I recognise that enclosing this space would bring some economic and business benefits. Unenclosed or partially enclosed space cannot support the same amount of use, especially in cold or inclement weather. I weigh this factor in favour of the proposal.

I nevertheless find that the appeal proposal conflicts with the development plan, taken as a whole. For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should not succeed.