Appeal 6003399

The appeal is dismissed.

I have determined this appeal on the basis of the Council’s description of development as I consider that it is a more appropriate specification for the proposal.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the building and area, and the effect on the living conditions of neighbours at [address] in respect of outlook and received light.

The appeal building is a detached house with a large rear garden. It is set between a nursing home at [address] and a dwelling at number 42. Both these buildings are taller than the appeal building and have contrasting individual architectural forms and design. Opposite the appeal site are the grounds of [name]. [address] is lined at either side by mainly large established dwellings which vary in form and design. The appeal property differs in that it is simpler and less decorative, with its modern form lacking the architectural quality and detailing of the older properties.

The proposed extensions would result in an imposing three storey building with a front elevation that lacked symmetry because of the gables and windows of differing sizes. In view of the height and bulk of other properties in [address] an extended dwelling of larger height, scale and sympathetic massing could be acceptable. However, the proposed form and design of the extensions proposed in this appeal would fail to enhance the character and appearance of the existing building. It would not sit acceptably in its context or represent high quality design. That is because of the proposed block-like form and appearance of the front elevation, which would lack quality and visual interest.

Overall, the extended building would appear bland and intrusive in the street scene compared to the more distinctive and varied architectural quality of neighbouring development in [address].

The proposal would therefore conflict with policy PG3 of the Birmingham Development Plan and policy DM2 of the Development Management in Birmingham Development Plan Document. These policies seek to ensure that development responds appropriately to its context and does not result in unacceptable harm to the quality of the built environment. The proposal would also conflict with the design objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and [name].

In its [name] the Council identified a minor breach of 1.3 metres when applying the 45 degree code to the nearest habitable room window in [address]. The appellant has commented that the report does not provide any detailed or quantitative assessment of any resulting loss of daylight, sunlight, or outlook, and does not demonstrate that the identified breach would result in material harm to residential amenity. The appeal building is located to the north of [address] so there would be minimal loss of received sunlight. Intervening boundary vegetation also provides some enclosure for the relevant window.

I agree that insufficient evidence has been submitted by the parties to quantify the harm from the proposal to the living conditions of the occupants of [address] resulting from the proximity of the proposed extensions. Nevertheless, the harm that I have identified from the proposal to the character and appearance of the building and area is sufficient reason to dismiss this appeal.

I have had regard to the social, economic and sustainability objectives in the Framework. Although the proposal would make better use of previously developed land and improve the performance and longevity of the building, I consider that it would fail to enhance the quality of the built environment and therefore would not represent a sustainable form of development.

The proposed development would fail to comply with the development plan as a whole and should be dismissed.