Appeal 6004585

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for Single storey front and rear extension and double storey front and rear extension at [site address] , [name], Birmingham, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2025/05188/PA and the plans submitted with it subject to the following

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

The development shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans: C1167/005 [name]; C1158/006 [name].

Materials used in the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match, in colour, texture and appearance, those found in the existing building.

Any parts of side-facing first floor windows below a height of 1.7m above floor level shall be non-opening and obscure glazed.

The description on the appeal form and decision letter differs from that appearing on the application form. Although neither party has referred to the change I have used that employed on the appeal form as it is a more accurate and complete description of what is proposed.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on: • the character and appearance of the street scene, and • neighbouring amenity.

The appeal site (No.8) is a large two-storey detached house dating from the late twentieth century located within a small development of similar properties which, although of differing plan form and size, have a consistent appearance with gabled bays and dormers addressing the generally open street scene where stepped setbacks accommodate the curving access road. The proposal would bring forward the front elevation at ground floor level but the existing set-back from the front elevation of its neighbour, [address] (No.6) would remain unaffected at upper floor level and only partly reduced at ground floor level.

The Council refer to Note LW16 of the [name] which outlines considerations to be addressed if extensions are to complement the original dwelling. However, other than by reference to a lack of uniformity or differences in size it is not explained, in architectural or design terms, in what way the proposal falls short or would be visually obtrusive within the wider street scene. Whilst the appearance of the front elevation would be significantly changed, there is a degree of variety in the plan forms within the street such that the existing visual consistency would be retained by care in the use of materials and appearance of fenestration. I consider the proposed changes would be absorbed into the street scene. On that basis I conclude there would be little conflict with Policy PG3 of the Birmingham Development Plan (2017) (BDP).

The Council refer to pre-determination amendments they requested to prevent intrusion upon the ’45 degree’ splay from a habitable room adjoining in No.6, making various policy references but offer no qualitative consideration of on-site circumstances. The Council quote from LW-4 of the [name] 2022 as to the trajectory of the measurement of the splay being a ‘clear line of sight’ but it is not apparent how this rule can be applied where there is a high intervening structure such as a fence. In this case site the offending part of the rear extension would be single storey but immediately adjacent to a high, opaque, boundary fence. Further, the garden is wide and the window has an open outlook. I also note that the window referred to is not the only ground-floor window on the rear elevation of No.6. [name] consider any impact upon access to daylight or outlook would be marginal in the particular circumstances of the site and setting.

The proposal would insert a new first floor window on the flank wall adjacent to No.[address]. Although this would overlook only the intervening spaces and serves a non-habitable space, the slight risk of harm to privacy from an opening window in this location can be addressed by condition.

I therefore conclude there would be little conflict with Policies DM2 and DM10 of the Development Management in [name] (2021) (DMBDPD) which seek, respectively, that development should not result in unacceptable adverse impacts on neighbours and maintain adequate outlook and maintaining an uninterrupted splay of vision and access to daylight.

Overall, for the reasons given and taking all matters raised into account, the appeal succeeds subject to the usual timing and plans condition together with a materials condition to ensure the development complies with the basis of my decision and in relation to side-facing first floor windows such that the privacy of adjoining users is not affected.