Appeal 3368466

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for Erection of single storey rear extension at [address], Quinton, Birmingham, [postcode] , in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 2025/01780/PA and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development shall be completed in accordance with the following approved plan: 250102/101

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of [address].

The appellant proposes the removal of a large conservatory and the addition of a single storey flat-roofed extension to the rear of the already-extended host dwelling, [address] (No.5). Although both No.5 and the adjacent house (No.[address]) were originally semi-detached with other dwelling pairs, the gap between No.3 and No.5 has been infilled at ground level such that there is partial terracing and a slight convergent effect due to the curved road layout.

The Council’s refusal reason refers to a level difference, and to Policy DM10 of the Development Management in [name] 2021 (DMDPD), which indicates that ‘Development will need to ensure adequate outlook and daylight to dwellings which includes potential impacts on existing houses, where development should not cross the line from an angle of 45 Degrees from the nearest window providing the main source of natural light to a habitable room’. In this case, it is not disputed that the proposed extension would interfere with that 45o splay from the window in the small kitchen extension of No.3, however, from my observations, a number of other factors are material to the likely impact of what is proposed.

The rear elevations of both No.5 and No.3 face in a north-easterly direction, and the proposed extension would therefore be on the northern side of the affected property, such that direct interference with sunlight/daylight is likely to be nominal. Whilst the height difference1 between the properties would tend to increase any shading effect, the splay referred to passes within2 one metre of the outer edge of the extension proposed. Further, the 45o splay currently passes through the end of the infilling side extension of No.3, at a point where there is also some boundary planting of non-deciduous trees and a high fence.

Overall, and taking into account the otherwise open outlook from both houses and their ample gardens which have good access to available sunlight, it is my conclusion that the impact of the extension upon access to daylight for the nearest window of No.3 would not be unacceptable. Nor, for the same reasons, would the extension appear unduly overbearing, notwithstanding the small levels difference.

I therefore conclude the proposed development would not conflict with Policies DM2 or DM10 of the DMDPD nor, therefore3, with the development plan as a whole. Consequently, for the reasons given and taking all matters raised into account, the appeal succeeds subject to the usual timing and plans conditions.