Appeal 6002766

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area.

The appeal property is a two-storey detached residential dwelling with a hipped tiled roof. The dwelling has previously been extended to the side. The neighbouring properties on [address] comprise a two-storey semi-detached property to the left and a bungalow to the right. The rear of the appeal property is visible from a public footpath which runs to the side of the neighbouring bungalow. The wider street scene is a mix of single and two-storey properties, contributing to a varied residential character. An assessment of the surrounding area indicates that rear dormers are not a characteristic feature of the hipped-roof properties in the vicinity.

The proposed roof extension would introduce a wedge-shaped dormer structure which would wrap around the existing hipped roof and raise the ridge height by approximately 1 metre. Its overall bulk and massing would appear dominant when viewed from the street. Whilst there may be variation in roof heights in the locality the proposal would be much higher than those immediately surrounding it.

The scale of the roof addition would be out of proportion with the existing house, overwhelming its current form and would appear particularly incongruous next to the flat roofed extension to the side and the bungalow adjacent. To the rear, the dormer would be particularly prominent when viewed from the pedestrian footpath which connects [address] to [address] and would therefore appear discordant in this context.

In coming to my conclusion, I have had regard to City Note LW-16 of the [name] and [name] (2022), which advises that extensions should be smaller than the main part of the house and not dominate its appearance.

My attention has been drawn to other development in the surrounding area. However, I am not aware of the exact location or full circumstances of these other cases and in any event each scheme must be considered on its individual merits, and these examples do not lead me to an alternative conclusion on this main issue.

For these reasons, therefore, the proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the host building and the wider area. Consequently, in this regard it would conflict with Policy PG3 of the Birmingham Development Plan 2031 (2017). The reason for refusal also refers to Policies DM2 and DM10 of the Development Management in Birmingham Development Plan Document (2021). However, because these policies pertain to living conditions, it has not been determinative in the assessment of the main issue.

I appreciate that Schedule 2, Part 1, Class B of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) permits alterations and additions to the roof of a dwellinghouse, which may include dormers or hip to gable roof extensions. However, this is subject to limitations, including the volume of the addition, and so the size of any roof addition carried out to the existing dwelling under permitted development rights would be relatively modest. The proposal would not be permitted development and therefore this consideration carries minimal weight and does not lead me to an alternative conclusion on the

Although the appellant refers to potential economic benefits through construction employment and the purchase of material in the local economy, these would be temporary and modest and do not outweigh the harm the proposal would cause to the character and appearance of the street scene.

For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.