Appeal 6002895

The appeal is dismissed.

Some of the information on the application form is illegible, however I am satisfied that the appellants name and the address of the appeal site are as set out in the banner heading above.

At the time of my site visit, I saw that development had commenced. I note that what has been constructed appears to differ from that which is shown on the submitted plans. I have considered the appeal on the basis of the information shown on the plans and not what has been constructed on site. The appeal before me is not retrospective, and the commencement of works does not influence my assessment. I have determined the appeal on its planning merits, based on the evidence provided.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on; • the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area; and • the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] with particular regard to daylight and outlook.

The proposed development would further extend the appeal property to the rear at first floor and increase the height of the single storey rear extension; the resulting property would be significantly larger in scale than those within the surrounding street scene. As a result, it would appear unduly dominant and visually out of keeping with the established pattern of development. Although the extension would be positioned to the rear of the dwelling, the side elevation would be very prominent when travelling along [address] from [address] where verge planting is limited. Consequently, notwithstanding the existing vegetation the appeal development would be readily apparent from the public domain such that it would have a significant influence on the street scene.

The appellant argues that the Council’s concerns are confined to the rear extension alone. However, the appeal scheme cannot be considered in isolation and must be assessed in the context of its cumulative scale and massing, including the prior approval schemes. When considered in this way, the combined effect of the additions would be out of keeping with the established character and appearance of the street.

The appeal property is locally listed and therefore constitutes a non-designated heritage asset (NDHA). From my site visit, it was evident that the character of the dwelling has already been significantly altered by the works carried out under the prior approvals. The proposal would further erode what remains of its original form and appearance, resulting in additional harm to the building’s significance and the area as a whole. The increased scale and massing would visually dominate the original bungalow form, eroding its modest architectural character. I shall return to this matter later.

I have also had regard to City Note LW-16 of the [name], which provides adopted guidance on achieving high-quality design and ensuring residential extensions respond appropriately to their setting. In this instance, the proposal would conflict with the SPD’s design principle which requires extensions to complement the character of their host building and its surroundings. When read cumulatively with the approved extensions, the proposal would result in an addition that is overly dominant and no longer clearly subordinate to the original dwelling. The extension would therefore conflict with City Note LW-16 and would harm the character and appearance of the property.

I acknowledge that the rear extension would be partially screened from public view by trees within the garden. I do not consider that the lack of public visibility obviates the needs to achieve good design. Indeed, paragraph 131 of the Framework states that the creation of high-quality buildings and places is fundamental to what the planning and development process should achieve.

The appellant has referred me to a number of other extensions within the surrounding area. However, I do not have full details of those developments, including their individual circumstances or the planning considerations that applied to them. Based on my observations, I am not persuaded that they are directly comparable to the appeal proposal in terms of their scale, form, or overall effect on the street scene. In any event, their presence has not led me to a different view on

For these reasons, I conclude the proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the host building and the wider area. Consequently, in this regard, it would conflict with Policy PG3 of the Birmingham Development Plan (2017) and Policy DM2 of the Development Management in [name] (2021) which among other things seek to ensure development is sympathetic to local character.

The proposal would involve increasing the height of the existing single storey extension to the rear previously permitted by a recent [name]. An additional storey would also be added to the rear of the property which would be stepped back from the full extent of the single storey element and would have a hipped roof stepped down from the ridge height of the main house. It would extend the full width of the property at first floor level.

The outlook from the rear windows of [address] (No.20) would be adversely affected by the increased height of the single storey element of the proposal. The expanse of brick flank wall close to the boundary would be greater than in the previous application and this tips the balance between one which would be significant but acceptable to one which would be overbearing and unacceptable. Furthermore, it has not been demonstrated that the increased height would not have a noticeable impact on light to the windows on the rear elevation of No.20.

The appellant states that the proposal would replace a former garage which sat on the boundary with No.20. However, as this structure has now been removed from the rear garden, I must consider the scheme based on the current circumstances and based on my site visit the increase in height of the parapet would be overbearing in this instance.

I therefore conclude that the proposal would have an adverse impact on the living conditions of the occupants of No. 20, with particular regard to daylight and outlook. The appeal scheme conflicts with Policy PG3 of the Birmingham Development Plan (2017) and Policies DM2 and DM10 of the Development Management in [name] (2021), which, among other things, require development to be appropriate to its context and not result in unacceptable adverse impacts on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers, including effects on daylight and outlook.

The consented [name] appeared to have commenced on site and therefore represent a real and implementable fallback. However, the existence of a commenced fallback does not mean that a materially larger or more harmful scheme must be accepted. The permitted development fallback establishes the scale of development that could lawfully be completed, but the appeal proposal would increase the height to the rear single storey extension and introduce additional first-floor bulk that is not present in the fallback scenario. These differences would result in greater harm to both the character of the dwelling and the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. The fallback therefore does not outweigh the identified harm or the conflict with Policies DM2 and DM10 and I therefore attach limited weight to the fallback position in the planning balance.

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that proposals should be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

The Council states that the appeal property and the neighbouring property are [name] locally listed. Consequently, the appeal property should be considered as a NDHA. Paragraph 216 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that the effect of an application on the significance of an NDHA should be taken into account in decision-making, and that a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset. I have no information before me regarding the significance of the property as a NDHA nevertheless I can see that it forms part of a group of period properties on [address] of similar design origin. I have no reason to dispute its value and status as an NDHA. Although the front façade of the property would retain some original features, much of the remainder of the property would be altered in some way. Consequently, in my judgement the scale of harm to the NDHA would be significant. This is due to the combined effect of the total and permanent loss of original historic building fabric and the harmful effects of the proposed extension on the character and appearance of the building and the wider area. I attach significant weight to this harm, having regard to paragraph 216 of the Framework.

I have also found that the proposal would have an unacceptable adverse effect on the outlook, and therefore living conditions, of the occupants of the neighbouring property. I attach moderate weight to this harm in the planning balance.

I have considered the harm against the benefits of the proposal which include the provision of enlarged living accommodation for the appellant and their family and the appellant’s assertion that the appeal scheme would provide a more controlled and cohesive form of development when read alongside the lawful prior approvals.

These benefits do not amount to a material consideration of sufficient weight to indicate that a decision contrary to the development plan should be made, or which outweighs the material harm to the NHDA. Given the findings above, the proposal would conflict with the development plan and there are no material considerations of sufficient weight which indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.