Appeal 6002259

The appeal is dismissed.

I have utilised the Council’s description of the proposal as I find it describes the proposal more concisely. I note that this varies from the description on the application form which references a new in-out drive which the appellant states was removed from the proposal (as a result of comments from the Highway consultee). The Council’s description references retention of the metal railings and gates, as a boundary treatment, which are on site and which are shown on the submitted plans. [name] of drawing 006 is noted to have removed the in-out drive but clearly retains the metal railings and gates, on the original wall, noted in the Council’s description and which are referred to within the second refusal reason.

The main issues are the impact of the proposal upon i) neighbouring residential amenity with regard to loss of outlook/light and ii) the character and appearance of the existing house and surrounding street scene.

The first refusal reason is specific in it being based upon the proposed two storey side extension and its impact to the neighbouring property – [address] (no.

with regard to loss of outlook/light. Whilst the proposals may be compliant with the 45-degree code – the code is one of several factors which can be reasonably taken into account with regard to potential impact on neighbouring amenity. The Birmingham Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document 2022 (The Design Guide) advises/advocates for the maintenance of a 12.5 metre separation distance between neighbouring habitable rooms and the flank wall of a proposed extension. In this case no. 44 has a ground floor habitable room which relies on a side facing window as its only source of light and outlook. Such issues are noted to have been raised within third party comments received as part of the application process.

The proposed two storey side extension would be constructed at a significant shortfall to this 12.5 metre separation distance. Whilst the window is acknowledged to face the adjacent properties own flat roofed single storey side garage and the two existing two storey side structure adjacent to the boundary, the garage structure is single storey with a flat roof design. The existing two storey side extension does not cover the full length of the neighbours ground floor side window. The addition of the two-storey side extension would cover the full length of the window in question (at two storeys) which would unacceptably exacerbate the existing levels of light and outlook compared to the existing built form on site.

It is acknowledged that the existing built form, and relationship, is already substandard to an extent with regard to the ground floor window at no. 44, however, for the reasons outlined above I find that the window in question (as the only source of light and outlook to the habitable room) would be unacceptably impacted. The proposal would worsen the existing levels of light and outlook as a result of the proposed two storey side extension and a lack of adequate separation distance. Even if the proposal was acceptable with regard to light this is separate to the likely impacts as to outlook as a result of two storey development further enclosing the habitable window in question to the detriment of the neighbouring occupant(s).

The proposal would be contrary to Birmingham Development Plan 2017 (DP) Policy PG3, which requires design that responds to the site conditions and demonstrate high design quality as well as Development Management in Birmingham Development Plan Document 2021 (DPD) Policy DM2 which requires proposals to not result in unacceptable adverse impacts on the amenity of occupiers and neighbours with regard to daylight, aspect and outlook. The proposal would also be contrary to the overarching objectives of The Design Guide which seeks to ensure that new development must ensure it does have unacceptable impact on the amenity of existing residential properties and paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (the Framework) which seeks to ensure developments create places with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.

Whilst the brick elements of the front boundary may be original, and unamended following removal of the in-out drive element, the front metal railings and gates are a later addition and remain as part of the proposals as shown on the plans and as seen on site. Whilst these may be “as existing” as stated by the appellant; the Council’s report, and third-party comments, support that the front boundary treatment prior to the installation of the railings and gates had comprised a moderate heighted brick wall and moderate height piers. This statement is not disputed within the appellant’s submissions.

This appeal is made under Section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission and I have therefore dealt with it on its planning merits based upon the evidence, including the plans as outlined, before me. The second refusal reason is specific in its reference to the metal gates and railings which, as noted above, still form part of the plans following removal of the in-out drive (via a second dropped kerb). I cannot therefore reasonably agree with the appellant’s assertion that in this case all associated boundary amendments were removed from the application – the railings and gates are an addition to the original wall and piers.

Whilst there is some variation in the character and appearance of front boundary treatments along [address], the majority of these are characterised by low boundary walls and soft landscaping features in the form of hedges and general planting. The appeal site, prior to the installation of the metal railings and gates, would have been open in nature and more consistent with the character of the area. The presence of the railings and gates, on top of/in addition to the original boundary wall and piers results in an aggressive and dominant front boundary treatment. Whilst some properties do feature metal railings, including the property opposite the appeal site, I do not find these comparable to the appeal proposal.

The wall/railings seen on other sites I find are comparable to the height of the existing wall at the appeal site upon which the railings, at the appeal site, have then been located. Their height and design are not, therefore comparable. Retention of the front metal railings and gates would therefore result in an undesirable and alien feature of notable contrast to the low boundary walls, soft landscaping and generally open nature of the property frontages along [address] and compared to the original boundary treatment prior to their installation.

The proposal would be out of keeping with the design, character and appearance of the dwelling as a result of its fortified appearance and would be contrary to DP Policy PG3 which requires new development to reinforce or create a positive sense of place and local distinctiveness with design that responds to site conditions and the local area context and DPD Policy DM2 which requires proposals to be appropriate to its location. The proposal would also be contrary to The Design Guide and paragraph 135 of the Framework which share the objective of ensuring developments will function well and add to the overall quality of the area as well as being sympathetic to local character.

I note third party comments with regard to the proposed balcony; however, this was removed within amended plans having been replaced with Juliet-style balconies to the existing first floor rear elevation which, based upon the evidence before me, would not result in loss of privacy which would be sufficient to result in refusal. The proposed first floor side en-suite windows could also be conditioned with regard to obscure glazing to protect neighbouring privacy in response to third-party comments with the remaining first floor side windows (dressing and laundry rooms) not being habitable room windows sufficient to warrant refusal without conditions of this nature.

I have dealt with matters relating to outlook and light in the context of the main issues. I have also dealt with matters relating to character and appearance of the metal railings and gates in the main body of this decision letter. Comment is made with regard to the railings having been installed on land/walls beyond the ownership of the applicant, however, such matters are private between landowners albeit I acknowledge that queries have been raised with regard to completion of the application forms and ownership certificates for the application. Whilst such matters are acknowledged they are not, in this case, determinative matters within this appeal which I have dismissed based upon its own merits.

Whilst requests have been made for a daylight/sunlight and overshadowing assessment to be submitted, in this case I find there is sufficient detail to assess the proposal which has resulted in my finding that the lack of a separation distance which is adequate and would lead to an unacceptable loss of outlook notwithstanding separate issues as to light as outlined. I do not find that submission of such an assessment was necessary in the context of the assessment of the proposal as set out within the Council’s report.

The appellant has raised concern as to poor adherence to the Framework (guidance), a lack of opportunity to collaboratively resolve issues and a lack of positive working practices. Based on the Council’s statement it is stated that the appellant was given the opportunity to amend the proposals – but this was resisted. How the application was handled is not within the scope of this appeal which, furthermore, is not accompanied by an application for costs.

For the reasons outlined above, and taking into account all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.