Appeal 6003319

The appeal is dismissed.

The first floor rear extension has been completed. I am therefore considering this appeal retrospectively, which is reflected in the description of the development in the banner heading above taken from the Council’s decision notice.

The main issues are the effect of the development upon: • the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with particular regard to outlook, light and privacy; and, • the character and appearance of the host building and the surrounding area.

The only window serving the dining room of the neighbouring house, No [address], is on its side wall and consequently faces the boundary fence and side wall of the appeal property. Views over the fence from No 3’s dining room, and the kitchen window to the side of it, are of a projecting wing on the appeal property’s rear ground floor and the first floor rear extension.

The ground floor rear wing roof’s eaves appear approximately level with the top of the boundary fence and its ridge and sides are significantly higher than the fence. The rear wing also projects substantially beyond the field of view of the window from any position within the dining room.

The first floor extension does not project as far back as the ground floor wing but, whether standing or sitting within the dining room, the side wall of both floors on the Appeal Decision: 6003319 appeal property fill most of the field of view from the window significantly restricting the amount of sky visible from it and creating an overly dominant and overbearing presence.

The previous 2-storey rear bay window on the appeal property would have added significant bulk above the ground floor roofs restricting outlook from the neighbour’s dining room window prior to the appeal development, as noted by a previous planning Inspector in an appeal1 referred to by the Council. I also note that the ground floor rear wing already falls well under the 12.5m minimum distance between windows of habitable rooms and neighbouring side walls set out in the Birmingham Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2022) (SPD).

Furthermore, there is planning permission for a 2-storey rear extension. However, that extension would only project 0.9m from the rear wall of the house rather than the 3.5m depth of the appeal development, the side wall of which is considerably closer to the dining room window than the flank wall of the 2-storey bay it has replaced. The window faces northeast and due to the surrounding structures direct sunlight and daylight into the room would already have been limited prior to the development. Nonetheless, the reduction in sky visible combined with the size and closeness of the extension side wall has significantly worsened the outlook from the neighbour’s dining room window than would have been the case before it was built, or had it been built in accordance with previously approved plans.

The extension has patio doors which open out on to a ground floor extension roof and at the time of my visit there was a chair positioned outside the doors. However, the roof contains large lantern lights covering most of its surface which prevent its practical use as a roof terrace. As such, I do not share the Council’s concern that it would be used for that purpose and consequently result in overlooking into the neighbour’s property adversely affecting their privacy.

Overall, I conclude on this main issue that the development has unacceptably harmed the living conditions of occupiers of No [address] and thus conflicts with Policy PG3 of the Birmingham Development Plan (2017) (BDP), Policy DM2 of the Development Management in Birmingham Development Plan Document (2021) (DPD), the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) (the Framework) and the SPD which require high quality design which would not result in unacceptable adverse impacts on the amenity of neighbours. Policy TP27 of the BDP, referred to in the reason for refusal, specifically refers to the contribution new housing should make to creating sustainable places and as the development is an extension is not in my view relevant.

The appeal site is adjacent to a retail food hall customer car park, and the development is visible from within it and from [address] approaching the entrance to the car park from the junction with [address]. The rear of several other houses along [address] are also visible from within the car park.

The extension is substantially wider and deeper than the roof dormer above it. Although it does not extend across the full width of the house, it dominates the rear and side of the property. The flat roof on the extension encroaches onto the main house roof, above the eaves, which gives it an awkward appearance and adds to 1 (APP/P4605/A/03/1114974) Appeal Decision: 6003319 its dominance. Other houses visible from the car park close to the appeal site have rear projecting elements but these comprise rear wings with pitched roofs and gable ends which break up their bulk to some extent.

The appellant has provided an aerial image of the property and existing plans that accompanied an approved scheme which show the rear of it prior to the development. The bay window did not extend as far across the rear of the house or out from the main wall as the appeal extension and its roof does not appear to have been as high, or encroach on to the main house roof, as is the case with the appeal scheme. Its smaller size and angled walls added interest to the first floor rear of the property breaking up its mass to some extent. In contrast, the appeal scheme is significantly larger and bulkier giving the first floor a monolithic appearance at odds with its previously more varied character, thus harming its appearance and because of its prominent location that of the surrounding area.

Overall, I conclude on this main issue that the development conflicts with Policy PG3 of the BDP, the SPD, Policy DM2 of the DPD and the Framework which require high quality design which complements the character of the host building and its surroundings.

The appellant has suggested that existing planning consents should carry significant weight in determining the appeal scheme. However, the consented scheme in the plans provided to me is a more sympathetic design. Although the rear dormer was proposed to be extended by 2m, the rear bay is shown as retained with the flat roof replaced with a pitched tiled roof and a much shallower flat roofed first floor extension. The consented scheme appears less bulky and more in keeping with the host property than the appeal development and consequently less harmful to its appearance and the amenity of neighbours. As such, as a potential fallback position it carries little weight.

Representations raised concerns, amongst other things, over the accuracy of the plans submitted. However, this does not add to my reasons for dismissing the appeal.

For the reasons given above, and having regard to all matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.