Appeal 6003793

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for erection of single storey side extension and installation of new bay window and mono-pitched roof to front elevation at [address], [name], Birmingham [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2025/05564/PA and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The external materials of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos: B72-01 site location, existing and proposed block plans, B72-04 Rev V2 proposed plans, and B72-06 Rev V2 proposed elevations.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] in respect of received light and outlook.

The appeal building is a detached dwelling located in a cul-de-sac comprised of similar properties. The Council advises that a window in the flank wall of the adjacent property of [address] serves a study/dining area and is located around 12.5 metres from the opposing flank wall of the appeal building. That separation distance would reduce to around 2.6 metres as a result of the proposed extension. The Council considers that the extension would lead to the opposing window in [address] receiving an inadequate amount of light. The ability to have through views onto the estate would be restricted and there would be an enhanced sense of enclosure for the occupants of [address].

The proposed extension would have an eaves height of around 2.26 metres, and height of around 4 metres. The appellant advises that such an extension could be built under permitted development rights, with the only exception being that it could not project forward from the front elevation of the house by the proposed distance of 70 centimetres. That projection is required to connect into a new roof-link bay window feature. The Council considers that the projection beyond the existing front elevation would be minimal and would not cause detrimental harm to the visual amenity of the dwelling house and street scene. I see no reason to disagree.

The appellant has submitted an assessment to determine the potential daylight and overshadowing effects on the windows in the flank wall of [address]. It concludes that the impact on the amount of daylight received by the windows is expected to be low. I am advised that the window serving the dining room/study is not original, having been inserted when a rear extension was built.

I acknowledge the concerns of the neighbour at [address] regarding the effect on their enjoyment of the dining/study room. However, I consider that there would be a realistic prospect that the appellant could carry out a development, excluding the forward projection beyond the front elevation of the house, under permitted development rights. That would have a similar impact on loss of light and outlook to the appeal proposal.

The appeal proposal would improve the privacy for the occupants of [address], and I consider that the proposed bay window and roof link would enhance the appearance of the appeal property. I find that there would be a slight increased harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] from the proposal in respect of received light and outlook, with consequent conflict with policies PG3 and TP27 of the Birmingham Development Plan, policy DM2 of the Development Management in Birmingham Development Plan Document, the [name] and the National Planning Policy Framework. However, I find that the degree of harm to residential amenity would be limited and similar to that which would result from a garage built in compliance with permitted development rights.

The proposed development should on balance, be allowed, subject to conditions.