Appeal 6006872

The appeal is dismissed.

I have used the description of development in the banner heading as taken from the appeal form, and in consideration the appellant has submitted the “Full Planning – Acknowledgement’ letter from the Council, indicating their agreement to amending the description from the original application form.

The application form confirms that the development has been completed and I was able to see this during my site visit. I have determined the appeal on that basis.

The main issues are the development’s effects on: • the character and appearance of [site address] and the surrounding area; and, • highway safety, with particular reference to its parking allocation.

The appeal site is prominently located on the junction between [address] and [address], and comprises the end property of a parade of shops. The parade has a simple rhythm and form, with uncomplicated shop fronts to their ground floors with signage above. The buildings have two minor symmetrical protrusions to provide additional architectural detail; however, the buildings maintain a relatively consistent building line with each other and the neighbouring residential properties on [address]. The shops are set back from the highway with space to their frontages, giving the area a spacious feel. These characteristics contribute positively to the character and appearance of the area.

The development has been constructed to the front elevation of the host building. I acknowledge there are aluminium shop fronts on the parade, and the canopy extends out from the below the main shop sign, however the development does affect the visibility of the attached neighbouring property and disrupts the rhythm of the buildings. None of the other properties on the parade have a front lobby or other such front extension, and due to the dimensions and design of the development, it introduces an alien protrusion that does not reflect the appearance of the rest of the parade and does not respond to the surrounding built environment. Consequently, it appears as an incongruous addition and causes harm to the appeal property and the surrounding area.

Though the parade may not benefit from significant architectural detailing, the design of the development nonetheless has failed to take into account the existing character or appearance of the host building and parade, in conflict with City Note LW-32 of the [name]: [name] and Working Places City Manual 2022 in relation to shop front designs. As a result, it has adversely impacted the appearance of the shop front, building and character of the surrounding area.

The appellant has raised other developments they consider comparable that have been approved elsewhere within Birmingham. However, I have not been provided with the full details of these sites and their surroundings to ascertain whether they are directly comparable with the appeal scheme and its context. In any event I have determined the appeal on its own merits, and I have found the introduction of the development has had an adverse effect in this location.

I conclude that the development causes unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of [site address] and the surrounding area. This would be in conflict with Policy PG3 of the Birmingham Development Plan 2017 (the LP), which concerns place making and requires all development to demonstrate a high design quality, including responding to site conditions and local area context. The development would also be contrary to the provision of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), which requires development add to the quality of the area, and are sympathetic to local character and the surrounding built environment.

The host building and attached properties are set back from the highway with informal parking arrangements to their front. The appeal property is a corner plot with hard surfacing to the front and side. No parking spaces are marked out. To access the informal parking area vehicles must cross a raised kerb and the pedestrian footway.

Due to the size and layout of the buildings frontage, the development has not realistically resulted in the loss of number of vehicles that can park on the appeal site. There was only sufficient space for vehicles to park in a row outside the parade of shops prior to the construction of the development. The development has meant that the parking space between the edge of the host buildings frontage has been reduced, however a vehicle can still be parked in the same manner.

Likewise, even though the development has reduced the available space, prior to its construction vehicles could not turn within the site to enter and exit the site in a forward gear, as such there would be no greater harm than the scenario prior to the development being carried out.

The Highways Appeal Document submitted by the appellant notes a parking survey carried out at the site, which indicates that even if any of the existing parking allocation is displaced onto the street there is not an existing problem with street parking within the area. I also note the findings of the accident data highlighted.

The development has not materially changed the parking and circulation of the site from prior to the development being carried out, nor has it been demonstrated that there are existing highways safety issues in the surrounding area. The Framework requires development to only be refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network, following mitigation, would be severe, which would not be the case with the development subject of the appeal. I also do not find conflict with the Birmingham Parking Supplementary Planning Document.

I conclude that the development does not cause harm to highway safety, including with regard to its parking allocation. Therefore, it would be in accordance with those aims of Policy DM14 of the Development Management in Birmingham Development Plan Document 2021, which requires new development to not have an unacceptable adverse impact on highway safety. The development would also accord with Policy PG3 of the LP that requires the design of developments to respond to site conditions and local area context.

[name] do not find harm in relation to highway safety, the development has an unacceptable impact on the character and appearance of the appeal site and surrounding area. The scheme conflicts with the development plan, and there are no material considerations raised, which would outweigh that harm. For these reasons, the appeal should be dismissed.