Appeal 6005487

The appeal is allowed, and condition 3 of planning permission 2024/01582/PA granted on 3 May 2024 for an infill side/rear single storey extension at [site address] is hereby discharged in accordance with the application 2025/06591/PA and the details submitted with it, in so far as it relates to the details for the ground floor bay windows.

Planning permission 2024/01582/PA (the ‘approved scheme’) has already been granted for a single storey extension. That scheme also included replacing the two existing ground floor bay windows that overlook the rear garden with full height windows and a set of patio doors. The approved full height windows would have small lead glazing bars, as would the top lights.

The difference with the appeal scheme before me is that the lower panels of the enlarged bay windows would not quite extend to full height and the glazing in the lower panels would be plain glass, not leaded panels. The leaded glazing design for the top lights, as in the approved scheme, would remain.

Condition 3 requires the submission of various details for the entire extension. However, the appeal before me relates only to the details for the replacement bay windows, and I have dealt with the appeal on that basis.

The main issue in this appeal is whether approval should be granted for the submitted window details, having regard to the character and appearance of the St Agnes Moseley Conservation Area (the CA).

The appeal property is a detached 1930s two storey dwelling that occupies a corner location at the junction of [address] and [address] in a predominately residential area. The site is also located within the CA which is focused on a number of residential streets that form part of the leafy suburb of Birmingham, some 4 miles south of the city centre.

I saw that there were a mix of detached, semi-detached and small groups of terraces of period properties. The appeal property falls within Character Area 4 ‘[address] and western end of [address]’, which the [name] (the CAA) describes as having an “eclectic mix of generally larger houses”. Despite the variety of designs and architectural detailing in the CA, including a range of doors, windows and materials, there was a general cohesiveness with properties set back from the road with good sized gardens and features such as gables and steep roofs. I also saw that bay windows were a predominant design feature, with a variety of styles and designs and examples of plain, leaded and stained glass glazing. The CAA explains that the CA was designated in recognition of its well-preserved Edwardian suburban housing, containing examples of work of almost all Birmingham’s most prominent Arts and Crafts architects of that period.

From the evidence before me and my site visit observations I consider the character and appearance of the CA, and thus its special interest and significance, are in part derived from the architectural richness and variety of its surviving buildings and street pattern that reflect the economic and social development of Birmingham and its suburban expansion in the Edwardian era, including properties occupied by members of families with important links to the area’s motor car industry. There is also associative interest with many houses designed by local Arts and [name] architects, such as [name], E and [name], and [name], now with a national reputation for their houses.

Occupying a corner location the appeal building is a stand-alone property and not part of a designed pair or series of dwellings. Nor is it read as part of a larger sweep of dwellings in the wider street scene in the same way as some properties I saw on the other roads. Nonetheless, this difference positively contributes to the richness of design of buildings both along [address] and [address] and to the character and appearance of the CA as a whole, and thus to its significance as a designated heritage asset.

I saw that the existing ground floor rear bay windows to be replaced, and the upper floor bay windows above that would remain, are not original but uPVC with modern effect lead glazing in both the upper and lower lights. The windows in the upper floor bays are similar. Thus the original glazing features have already been removed from the rear elevation of the property, such that there are none in-situ to replicate. The Council has already approved the enlargement of the lower bay windows and removal of the brick bases to the bay windows, thus changing their appearance and proportions, as well as agreeing to the insertion of patio doors.

The glazing proposed for the enlarged lower light panels would be plain glass, with the small leaded glazing in the top lights, much as it is now. I saw a variety of glazing styles and patterns in the area during my visit. The appellant has provided images of a number of bay window glazing examples that exist in the area and directed me to look at specific glazing examples at a number of nearby properties in [address] and [address]. I saw that a good number of these properties had clear glazing to the lower bay window panels. Furthermore, there was a variety of glazing in the top lights, with lead glazing, stained glass and plain glass. Consequently, the use of plain glazing in the lower panels of the bay windows and the use of leaded top lights would not look out of place at the appeal property and within the CA.

In this instance, I find the use of plain glass in the lower panels would be a more authentic response and reduce the overall amount of modern lead glazing effect. This would chime with the CAA, which advocates avoiding ‘masking of historic architectural details’. Furthermore, the bay windows are not on the principal or street-facing elevations of the property but are to the rear overlooking the garden. The property is set back from [address] behind a tall close boarded garden fence that screens the ground floor bay windows from view. Only the leaded top lights are currently visible and this view would not materially change with the replacement windows. The Council has not raised any objection to the use of aluminium as a material, which would have a white finish like the remainder of the windows, and I have no reason to take a different view.

Taking into account the existing windows and what has already been approved at the property, the wide variety of property designs and the different window and glazing designs I saw in the area, including the use of plain glass in the lower panels of bay windows, I am satisfied that the proposed window details would be acceptable. The street scene would not be adversely affected by the proposed window details and the character and appearance of the CA as whole would be preserved and thus its significance would not be harmed.

Accordingly the proposed window alterations would comply with Policy PG3 of the Birmingham Development Plan, which seeks, amongst other things, to ensure that development reinforces a positive sense of place and local distinctiveness with design that responds to site conditions and the local area context, including heritage assets. It would also broadly align with [name] 14 and 26 and City Note LW-8 of the [name] by delivering site-specific coherent architecture and detailing, and would avoid mimicking existing historic features.

For the reasons above, the appeal is allowed. [planning inspector] INSPECTOR