# K2 Bazar, 538-540 Stratford Road, Sparkhill, Birmingham

- **Decision:** dismissed, 9 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: C Billings
- **Authority:** Birmingham (West Midlands)
- **Appeal reference:** 6008724
- **Application reference:** 2025/06808/PA
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Front and side canopies and large single-storey rear extension to former Victorian bank in retail use (part retrospective)
- **Site context:** inside-settlement
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** HE7(2)
- **Development plan policies:** Birmingham Development Plan 2017 PG3, TP12, DM in Birmingham DPD 2021 DM2, DM6, DM14, DM15, Parking SPD 2021
- **Main issues:** character and appearance / NDHA, highway safety, living conditions
- **Tags:** ndha-harm, heritage-harm-decisive, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, retrospective, design-refusal, compliance-not-a-benefit

## Summary
Canopies and a large metal-clad rear extension to a former Victorian bank, which is a non-designated heritage asset, on Stratford Road, Sparkhill. Dismissed. The HE7(2) balance found "moderate to higher scale" harm to significance, and the benefits of bringing the building back into use got only limited weight because reuse did not depend on the extensions. Highways and living conditions were acceptable.

## Issues and findings
- **NDHA harm — HE7(2).** The canopies "would obscure features that contribute to the significance of this non-designated heritage asset" (DL ¶13). "the harm caused to the significance of this non-designated heritage asset would be at the moderate to higher scale of harm … affecting three elevations of the host building" (DL ¶14).
- **Benefits.** "it has not been demonstrated why the host building could not be utilised in a profitable and sustainable way without the proposed extensions. Therefore, I give limited weight to these social and economic benefits" (DL ¶33).
- **Compliance is not a benefit.** Acceptable highways and amenity "are not benefits of the appeal scheme, rather they are matters that the proposal is required to meet" (DL ¶34).

## Planning balance
HE7(2): "the moderate to higher scale harm … would not be outweighed by the public benefits of the proposed scheme" (DL ¶35). The inspector uses the HE6-style "public benefits" wording, although HE7 refers only to "benefits".

## What made the difference
The benefits were not tied to the harmful works. Reuse of the vacant bank could be had without the extension and canopies, so it barely counted. The NDHA harm was graded on a scale ("moderate to higher") rather than as substantial or less than substantial.

## Transferable points
- In an HE7(2) balance, benefits that could be achieved without the harmful element get limited weight (DL ¶33).
- NDHA harm is graded on a spectrum ("moderate to higher scale") and weighed against benefits (DL ¶14, 32).
- Acceptability on other issues is neutral, not a benefit (DL ¶34).

## Policy findings
- **HE7(2): harm.** "harm to the significance would be at the moderate to higher scale" — metal-clad rear extension nearly doubling ground floor, canopies obscuring ornate stone cladding and windows on three elevations (DL 10-14, 32); not outweighed (DL 35)
- **E1: benefit (limited weight).** code mapped by harvester — reuse of vacant building, small businesses, vibrancy; limited because building "could have been reused without the extensions and canopies" (DL 31, 33)
- **DP3(1): fail.** code mapped by harvester — conflict with BDP PG3 on character; DP3 not cited by the inspector (DL 15)
- **TR6: pass.** code mapped by harvester — 8 spaces against 19 standard; sustainable centre location, no highway safety harm (DL 24-29)
- **P3: pass.** code mapped by harvester — no outdoor amenity loss (never implemented) and no noise harm (DL 16-23)

## Key facts
- Former bank is a council-identified non-designated heritage asset outside any conservation area (DL 8)
- Built canopies differ from submitted plans; appeal decided on the plans (DL 3)
- Parties consulted on 2026 Framework (DL 4)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008724
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/25480404-a837-414e-8cd2-a5b9d4ecb5a9

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008724.html

A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. Source and data: https://github.com/planningdistilled/research.