Appeal 3313092

The appeal is dismissed.

The provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 as amended (GPDO), under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A, [name].4(7) require the local planning authority to assess the proposed development solely on the basis of its impact on the amenity of any adjoining premises, taking into account any representations received. My determination of this appeal has been made on the same basis. While the policies of the development plan and the supplementary planning guidance referred to in the Council’s decision notice have therefore not on their own been determinative, I have taken them into account as a material consideration, insofar as they are relevant to an assessment of the effect on amenity.

An amended plan has been provided as part of the appellant’s appeal submission which shows an alternative proposal for an extension which steps away from the boundary with No [address]. The appellant has confirmed that this amended plan ‘was sent after the decision’. As formal consultation will not have been carried out with neighbouring properties on this amended plan, I am unable to accept it as this would deprive those who may be affected by the proposal from an opportunity to comment. In the circumstances, I have considered the appeal on the basis of the drawing which was before the Council when it made its decision.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed extension on the living conditions of occupiers of the neighbouring dwelling at No [address] with particular regard to outlook and light.

The modest depth of the existing single storey rear projection on the appeal dwelling, and the low height of the concrete fence panels which sit along the shared boundary with No [address], ensure that a suitably open aspect is provided to the rear of this neighbouring dwelling.

However, the height of the proposed extension together with the extent of its projection along the shared boundary with No 103, would have an enclosing and dominating impact when experienced from the rear facing patio windows and the patio area serving this neighbouring dwelling.

Due to its mass and very close proximity, the extension would also be likely to result in some additional shadowing to the nearest ground floor room served by the patio windows and the closest parts of the patio area serving No 103. Indeed, the appellant has acknowledged within their statement of case that they ‘will need to bring in the wall by 103 due to the loss of light’. There is no detailed evidence before me to demonstrate that this loss of light would not be detrimental to the living conditions of occupiers of this neighbouring property.

In addition, the proposal would project beyond a 45 degree angle when measured from the mid-point of the patio windows serving No 103. This would be contrary to the provisions within the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance in ‘the 45° Code’ (2006) and the [name] (2022) and this further persuades me that the proposal would have an unacceptable effect on the quality of outlook and light experienced by occupiers of this neighbouring property.

I conclude that the development would have a significantly harmful effect on the living conditions of occupiers of the neighbouring dwelling at No [address] with particular regard to outlook and light.

The proposal would also be contrary to the local context and neighbouring amenity requirements of Policy PG3 of the Birmingham Development Plan (2017), Policies DM2 and DM10 of the Development Management in Birmingham Development Plan Document (2021) and the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance on ’45 [name] for [name] and the [name] (2022) and this is also relevant to my findings that the proposal would be unacceptable.

The appellant contends that the proposal would not affect neighbouring properties on [address]. Even so, this does not overcome the harm identified to the living conditions of occupiers of No [address].

For the above reasons, the appeal is dismissed.