Page 1 of 7

Committee Date: 19/09/2013 Application Number: 2013/05134/PA

Accepted: 12/07/2013 Application Type: Householder

Target Date: 06/09/2013

Ward: South Yardley

32 Hollyhurst Grove, Yardley, Birmingham, B25 1AR

Retention of side/rear dormer Applicant: Mr Mohammed Khalid

32 Hollyhurst Grove, Yardley, Birmingham, B25 1AR Agent:

Recommendation Refuse 1. Proposal 1.1. Consent is sought for the retention of a side/rear dormer. 1.2. The side/rear dormer as built is at a maximum width of 6.7m, 2.7m in height with a

flat roof. The dormer is predominantly timber constructed with tile-hung external finish. The dormer provides light and headroom for a bedroom within the loft space.

Proposed Plan

2. Site & Surroundings 2.1. The application site consists of a detached property with a pitched roof design,

double bay window column and an existing forward porch extension. 2.2. The application property has been previously extended at ground floor level with an

existing single storey side and rear extension. Planning permission was granted for a first floor side extension in 2012 (2012/05969/PA) which has recently been built at the property.

2.3. The application site is located at the head of a small cul-de-sac in a residential area

comprising of a mix of detached and traditional semi-detached dwellings. The application property is located on a large splayed plot.

2.4. To the rear is a long garden area which narrows in size towards the rear boundary of

the site. The boundary treatment to the neighbouring properties Nos. 27 and 30 Hollyhurst Grove consists of 2m timber fencing.

2.5. There are no other similar dormer developments visible within the surrounding area.

Site Location Street View

Page 2 of 7

3. Planning History 3.1. 08/08/2001 - 2001/03343/PA - Erection of single storey front, side and rear domestic

extension – Approved-Conditions. 3.2. 13/03/2012 - 2012/00454/PA - Erection of first floor side and rear extension –

Refused. 3.3. 15/10/2012 - 2012/05969/PA - Erection of first floor side extension – Approved-

Conditions. 3.4. 2013/0570/ENF – Unauthorised dormer development - Enforcement action being

held in abeyance pending the determination of this application. 4. Consultation/PP Responses 4.1. Adjoining residents and local ward Councillors have been notified. Three objections

received from the occupiers of Nos. 30, 32 and 34 Rowlands Road on the grounds of:

• Loss of privacy • Scale • Dormer development out of character with surrounding area • Eyesore

4.2 One letter of support received from the occupier of No. 27 Hollyhurst Grove and a

petition of 19 signatures from local residents of Hollyhurst Grove have been received in support of the retention of the side and rear dormer.

4.3 Councillor Zafar Iqbal has also responded in support of the retention of the dormer

development. 5. Policy Context 5.1. The following local policies are applicable:

• Birmingham UDP 2005 • Draft Birmingham Development Plan • Places For Living (Adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance 2001). • The 45 Degree Code (Adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance 1996). • Extending your Home (2007).

5.2 The following national policies are applicable:

• NPPF- Delivering Sustainable Development (2012) 6. Planning Considerations 6.1. The application has been assessed against the objectives of the policies as set out

above. 6.2. The principal matters for consideration are the impact on the appearance of the

property, the visual amenity of the area, and the amenities of neighbouring occupiers.

Page 3 of 7

6.3. The scale and design of the side/rear dormer as built is unacceptable. The development does not comply with the design guidance contained with ‘Extending Your Home’ which states that dormers should be modest in size and should not dominate the appearance of the roof of the property. ‘Extending Your Home’ states that dormers should be built in proportion with the size of the overall roof size and the development does not follow this guidance. The side/rear dormer is too large and excessively dominant on this relatively modest property. The development is highly visible from the front and is totally out of keeping with the appearance of the house and forward street scene.

6.4. I consider the development is an unsympathetic and uncharacteristic addition to the

dwelling and detracts significantly from the architectural appearance of the property, and the visual amenity and character of the surrounding area sufficient to warrant a refusal of this application.

6.5. The development is also contrary to policies 3.8 and 3.10 of the Council’s adopted

Unitary Development Plan (2005) which outlines the need to protect and enhance the environment and to not allow proposals which have an adverse effect of the quality of the built environment.

6.6. The development also conflicts with the National Planning Policy Framework (2012)

core planning principle which states that Planning should always seek to secure high quality design. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development and is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people (Para 56).

6.7. Paragraph 64 states that permission should be refused for development of poor

design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions.

6.8. The development complies with your Committee’s 45 Degree Code and the

numerical guidelines set out in 'Places For Living' and 'Extending Your Home' Design Guide.

6.9. Notwithstanding the comments and petition received in support of the proposal, I

consider that the side/rear dormer as built is contrary to the objectives of the policies outlined above and would set an undesirable precedent within the surrounding locality.

7. Conclusion 7.1. The application has been assessed against the policies outlined above. The

development as built has a detrimental impact on the appearance of the original property and the visual amenity of the surrounding area. I therefore recommend refusal of the application.

8. Recommendation 8.1. Refuse. Reason for Refusal 1 The size and design of the dormer as built is out of scale with the existing house and

Page 4 of 7

dominates its appearance and is out of keeping with the existing character of the street scene. As such it would be contrary to Paragraphs 3.8, 3.10 and 3.14C-D of the Birmingham UDP 2005, guidance in Extending Your Home adopted as a Supplementary Planning Document, and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Case Officer: Ricky Chima

Page 5 of 7

Photo(s)

Figure 1 Front View

Page 6 of 7

Figure 2 Rear View

Page 7 of 7

Location Plan

This map is reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Birmingham City Council. Licence No.100021326, 2010