Appeal 6004813

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for Formation of habitable rooms in roofspace with rear dormer and side gable build up at [site address] , Moseley, Birmingham, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2025/04727/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 development shall be carried out in accordance with the following unnumbered plan titled ‘formation of habitable rooms in roofspace with rear dormer and side gable build up’, dated 19:8:2025.

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

Any parts of side-facing windows in the development hereby approved that are less than a height of 1.7m above adjacent floor level shall be non-opening and obscure glazed.

The description of development appearing on the decision letter and appeal form differs slightly from that in the application form. Neither of the main parties has provided written confirmation that a revised description of development has been agreed. Accordingly, I have used the one given on the original application form.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area and street scene.

The appeal site (No.82) lies within an established residential area of mid-late twentieth-century, mostly semi-detached, suburban housing set in good-sized plots. The housing pairs are well-spaced and predominantly still display their original double-hipped tiled roof forms, although there are examples of extensions including hip-to-gable roof extensions and non-original tiling.

The proposal would result in significant changes to the original built form from the hip-to-gable side extension together with a large rear dormer and front-facing rooflights. However the Appellant has pointed to an appeal decision for a property nearby1 and to extensions to the adjacent property [address] (No.80) as precedent examples. Although the Council dismiss the relevance of the prominent alterations to No.80 on the basis that the work may have been ‘permitted development’, it has not been suggested that this development, which has similar impacts upon the street scene to those which would arise from the appealed proposal, is unlawful. The appeal decision and this example are factors which attract significant weight as to the need for consistency in decision-making.

The Council confirm that there would be no harmful impact upon amenity for neighbouring users. I note, however, that the proposals show an additional side-facing window to the access stair but this can be addressed by condition.

Overall, I conclude that although some planning harm would arise from the proposal, I must attach significant weight to the fallback position that has been advanced and to the precedent examples in terms of weighing that harm. Consequently, and notwithstanding some conflict with design guidance, policies Policy PG3 of the Birmingham Development Plan 2017 and Policy DM2 of the Development Management in [name] 2021 which are important policies directed at visual amenity of extensions, taking all matters raised into account my reasoning directs that on balance the appeal should succeed. This is subject to the usual timing and plans condition together with a materials condition to minimise visual impact upon the street scene and, as my reasoning explains, a condition in relation to side-facing top floor windows is also necessary.