Appeal 6003234

The appeal is dismissed.

Construction works have already been carried out at the site, and the works have been subject to an enforcement investigation by the Council. The plan titled [name]: [name] 001 within the appeal documents show rear extensions to the property that do not benefit from planning permission. The appeal site does however have planning permission for a rear two storey extension under 2024/08047/PA, which I have been provided the details of. I have therefore taken these into consideration in determination of the appeal for assessing the effects of the currently proposed development.

The extensions appearing similar to [name] 001 have been partially constructed. There are several key differences in elements of the constructed extensions where no amendments are proposed from [name] 001 to the proposed plans ([name] 002). These include the use of materials differing to those indicated on the application form, and the size and placement of windows and doors. For the avoidance of doubt, I have determined the appeal on the basis of the proposed plans before me.

The description of development on the application form and appeal form does not clearly describe the proposed development. As such the description used on the decision notice has been utilised, however with words such as “retention” and “remedial works” have been omitted, as they relate to the narrative of how the development has occurred and does not describe an operative part of the development from the site’s lawful position.

The acceptability of the rear dormer window forming part of the development is not contested by the council. I have no reason to consider otherwise so my decision has focused on the areas that are contested.

The main issues of the appeal are the effect of the proposed development on: • the character and appearance of [address] and the surrounding area; and, • the living conditions of the neighbouring properties, with particular regard to outlook and privacy.

The appeal site comprises a two-storey semi-detached dwelling that has been extended previously. [address] is a dual carriageway lined by a collection of residential dwellings, with the appeal site being an end plot. A number of properties on [address] North back onto the side elevation and garden of the appeal site. Due to the vegetation in neighbouring gardens the side elevation of the host dwelling is not prominent but is visible from the public domain.

The council find the single storey rear extension element of the proposal to be acceptable in relation to character and appearance, and I have no reason to consider otherwise so I will focus on the elements that are contested.

The proposal includes a two-storey rear extension which would extend the depth of the property considerably in comparison to the original dwelling. The proposed side elevation facing towards [address] North would create an excessively large blank elevation which would not represent a high quality of design, resulting in detriment to the character of the building and surrounding area. By way of the two-storey extensions depth, shape and design, it would not respond well to the original form of the host dwelling or the surrounding built environment and would therefore be contrary to the principles outlined in the [name]: [name] and Working Places City Manual 2022 (the [name]).

For these reasons, the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the appeal site and surrounding area. Consequently, it would conflict with Policy PG3 [name] of the Birmingham Development Plan 2017, which seeks that development is of a high design quality, and takes into consideration site conditions and local context.

The proposed extension covers the full width of the house, such that it is up to the boundary with [address] East, the adjoining semi-detached property. An element of the proposed single storey extension closest to the boundary with No.17 is not as deep as the two-storey extension. The outlook from No.17’s rear windows and conservatory look along a fence on the boundary line, and prior to the works being carried out No. 15 had a rear conservatory of similar depth in proximity to the boundary. Consequently, I find the proposed development would not significantly impact the outlook of No.17.

Concerns have been raised in relation to loss of privacy to the rear gardens of the properties on [address] North from the rear window of the two-storey extension. The proposed window is below the minimum distance to a neighbouring private space set out in the [name]. The host dwelling prior to the works recently carried out had windows with a similar relationship providing views at similar angles, as did the approved plans from the 2014 application. Due to the existing relationship between the properties this would not create notably different views from the host dwellings rear window that it did not before, as such I do not find this would lead to an unacceptable loss of privacy.

For these reasons, the proposal would not harm the living conditions of neighbouring residents, with regard to outlook and privacy. As such, it would be in accordance with Policy DM2 Amenity of the Development Management in Birmingham – Development Plan Document 2021, which seeks that development should not have an unacceptable adverse impact on the living conditions of neighbouring properties.

The appellant has highlighted the fallback position of being able to implement the planning permission 2024/08047/PA. However, it is clear from the depth of the approved two storey extension that it would be considerably less harmful to the character and appearance of the host building and surrounding area than the two-storey extension currently proposed. As such I can only attach very limited weight to this fallback position.

I have also been referred to a number of other developments locally in support of the proposal. I have however not been provided with the full details of these, and I am not aware whether they have obtained planning permission or otherwise. In any event I have determined the appeal on its own merits.

The proposal would conflict with the development plan and there are no material considerations raised that would outweigh that conflict. For these reasons given above, the appeal should be dismissed.