Appeal 6001768

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of two storey side and rear extension and loft conversion to existing dwelling and change of use of newly acquired land from commercial to residential for ancillary use with existing dwelling at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2025/04474/PA, subject to the following conditions:

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

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following drawings: • Location & Block Plan (OS/1001) • [name] (1001-05) • Proposed Ground Floor Plan (1001-06) • Proposed First Floor Plan (1001-07) • Proposed Loft Plan (1001-08)

The external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be constructed in the materials shown on plan number 1001-05 ([name]).

I have utilised the description of development as shown on the decision notice as opposed to that given in the application form. This has been done in the interests of conciseness and clarity.

I note that both parties refer to an appeal decision which relates to this appeal site. However, this has not been provided in the evidence before me. I have assessed the appeal before me based on its planning merits.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development upon the character and appearance of the host dwelling.

[site address] is a two‐storey detached dwelling featuring a hipped roof with a front gable and a bay window to the principal elevation. The appeal property presents as a more modern addition within a streetscape that is predominantly characterised by terraced housing, with some semi‐detached dwellings and occasional detached properties. Those examples, however, are generally older buildings of a more traditional architectural form. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the host dwelling is distinct in its appearance and represents a unique built form within [address].

[name] 16 of the [name] 2022 (SPD 1) states that household extensions should be designed to respond to and complement the character of the host building and its surrounding context. City Note LW‐16 of the [name]: [name] and Working Places City Manual 2022 (SPD 2) expands on this requirement, advising that proposals should take account of the defining characteristics of the host property, including specific elements of its appearance, its scale, and other relevant considerations. Whilst these SPD’s are a material consideration, they are however only guidance.

The proposed development would introduce a number of extensions to the host dwelling. Along the front elevation, I note that the proposal would provide a set down from the roof ridge with a matching roof form, a set back from the existing elevation and it would not be greater than half of the width of the existing building. When viewed from [address], these design considerations would respect the appearance, scale and defining characteristics of the existing property.

Turning to the rear of the property, I acknowledge that extending the built form from the front through to the rear would result in an addition of notable depth. The side elevations of this rearward projection would be visible from [address]. However, due to the tight spatial relationship between No. 101 and the appeal site, such views would be restricted to very limited glimpses. Although the separation distance between the appeal property and the [name] is greater, the direction of travel along [address] similarly restricts views to passing glimpses. Where visible, the extension along the side, despite its length, would be perceived as a subordinate addition, owing to its set‐back position, reduced height, and consistent roof form. As such, it would be read as an element that appropriately reflects the characteristics of the host dwelling.

The proposed development would introduce a two‐storey extension across the full width of the rear elevation, extending over both the first and second floors and resulting in an overall increase in floorspace that would effectively double that of the original dwelling. Therefore, this would not be in strict accordance with SPD 2, which notes that the size of an extension should be smaller than the main part of the dwelling. This addition would be particularly visible from public vantage points along [address]. However, from this viewpoint, it is evident that Nos. 107, 105, 103, 101 and the [name] all feature substantial rear projections. In its current form, the appeal property therefore appears as a noticeably smaller building in the middle of this sequence of plots.

When viewed from [address], the proposed extension would present a depth comparable to that of its immediate neighbours and would incorporate fenestration that reflects the existing arrangement. As a result, it would read as a building of similar proportions to those surrounding it. This would not appear alien in this context, or to the character and appearance of the host building. Furthermore, given the already distinctive and atypical appearance of No. [address], I am not persuaded that the proposed increase in scale would result in unacceptable harm in this context.

Turning to the proposed roof arrangement, the extensions would incorporate a dual‐hipped roof form with a dormer structure above. The Council argues that this configuration would result in an awkward and visually unattractive elevation. However, in my judgment, the proposed design would instead emphasise the subservient nature of the new roof elements in relation to the existing dwelling, owing to their reduced height beneath the established roof form. This relationship would reinforce, rather than undermine, the character of the host building.

The proposed flat‐roof dormer would appear somewhat awkward against the proposed roof arrangement, when viewed directly from a flat rear elevation, or from the proposed plans. However, such direct views from public vantage points would be difficult to obtain. Public sightlines would predominantly be at an angle, from which the perceived awkwardness of the arrangement would be diminished due to the overall composition of the proposed roof form and the depth of the dormer.

To conclude, the proposed development would not conflict with Policy PG3 of the Birmingham Development Plan 2017, which seeks to ensure that new development responds appropriately to site conditions and the surrounding context. While the proposal may not fully align with the detailed guidance set out in SPD 1 and SPD 2, these documents serve as advisory material rather than prescriptive policy. In this particular case, given the spatial context, the character of the surrounding built form and the uniqueness of No. 99 in this context, I do not consider the degree of divergence from the guidance to result in harm.

The decision notice has cited Policy DM2 of the Development Management in Birmingham Development Plan Document 2021 in the reasons for refusal. This policy is concerned with amenity and ensuring that development proposals do not have an unacceptable effect upon the living conditions of neighbouring occupants. As such, this policy is not immediately applicable to this main issue.

In addition to the statutory time condition [1], a condition specifying the approved plans [2] is necessary in the interests of certainty. Compliance with the materials as shown on the approved plans [3] is necessary in the interests to promote an appropriate material finish of the proposed development.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed.