Appeal 3338178

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of neighbours at [address] in respect of outlook and received light.

The appeal building is a detached dwelling of distinctive design located in a residential area comprised of similar properties. The dwellings of 8,10 and [address] have a staggered layout, with previous rear extensions, including a conservatory at the appeal site. The proposed rear extension would replace the conservatory. However, unlike the conservatory, the proposed extension would adjoin the garden boundary with [address]. The extension would affect the nearby ground floor bay window at [address] by breaking the 45 [name] as set out in the Birmingham Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document.

There will already be some loss of light and outlook to the ground floor bay window at [address] because it is set back as part of the staggered layout and there is a timber screen fence with some vegetation along shared boundary with the appeal site. The appellant has proposed including glazing above a 2-metre-high flank wall, and within the nearest part of the proposed flat roof to [address], in order to try to mitigate any received loss of light or outlook from their bay window. Nevertheless, although there would be some mitigation regarding loss of light to the bay window than from a solid upper part of the structure, the proposed extension would result in undue enclosure and a significant increased loss of outlook for neighbours. That is because of the proposed height and proximity of the extension and its length along the shared boundary.

The appellant has submitted that a 2-metre-high brick wall could be built along the shared boundary with [address] under permitted development rights. However, the proposed extension would exceed that height and the proposed glazing would still adversely impact the outlook from the nearby ground floor bay window.

I find that the proposal would have a significant harmful effect on the living conditions of neighbours at [address] in respect of increased loss of outlook and light. The proposal would therefore conflict with Birmingham Development Plan policy PG3 which seeks to ensure that all new development demonstrates high design quality and policies DM2 and DM10 of the Development Management in Birmingham Development Plan Document which seek to protect residential amenity. Policy DM10 indicates that separation distances between buildings should protect residents’ outlook and ensure adequate levels of daylight. It would also conflict with the terms of the [name] concerning residential amenity and with the objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework regarding good design.

The appellant has referred to several properties in Birmingham where the Council has granted permission where the appellant considers that the impact of a technical breach of the 45 [name] has been mitigated through use of glazing over 2 metres in height. I acknowledge the appellant’s correspondence with the Council on this matter and that breaches of the Code will be assessed on a case-by-case method. However, there is no evidence to suggest that any of the circumstances were identical in terms of the relationship of the extensions with adjacent neighbouring ground floor windows. None of the examples cited forms sufficient precedence to allow harmful development at the appeal site.

For the reasons given above the appeal is dismissed.