Appeal 6005715

The appeal is dismissed.

Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A, of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (the GPDO) allows for the enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a dwellinghouse. That ‘permitted development right’ is subject to limitations and conditions, including those set out in paragraphs A.1(g) to (j) of Class A. [name].1(g) of the Order, among other provisions, grants planning permission on a semi-detached dwelling for a rear extension that would not exceed 6 metres.

The application for [name] was subject to [name].4(2) which specifies that the applicant must make an application to the Council and that the Council would need to give its prior approval of the development if an adjoining occupier/owner objects to the scheme. An objection was received following consultation by virtue of [name].4(7) of the GPDO. In such circumstances the decision must consider the impact of the proposed development on the amenity of any adjoining premises. [name].4(4) states that where prior approval is refused, such a refusal is to be treated as a refusal of an application for approval when considering an appeal.

Therefore, the main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with particular regard to sunlight, daylight and outlook.

The proposed rear extension would project 6 metres, and not exceed 4 metres in height, in compliance with paragraph A.1(g)(i) and (ii) of the GPDO. The appeal site is a semi-detached property, separated from its neighbour, at [address] (no 3), by a narrow passageway. The adjoining neighbouring dwelling, at [address] (No 7), has a small rear extension whilst No 3 has no extensions. The gardens of No’s 3, 5 and 7 include limited planting, providing only minor screening between the shared boundaries, which consist of wooden fencing. There is a modest change in levels between these three gardens, with the property of No 3 being set slightly lower and No 7 slightly higher.

The proposal would break a 45-degree line if taken from the rear windows of No 3 and may also be breached by the nearest rear facing window of No 7. This would therefore breach the Council’s ’45-code’, causing conflict with the [name] (BDG).

The proposed extension would occupy the full width of the existing dwelling. Due to its height and proximity to neighbouring windows, serving habitable rooms, the proposal would be obtrusive in outlook, especially from the rear windows of No 3. Furthermore, due to its orientation the proposal would cast a shadow over the rear windows of No 3, in the morning, and the windows of No 7 in the afternoon/evenings, resulting in a material reduction in sunlight. Daylight would also be reduced, albeit to a lesser extent. These adverse effects, on occupiers of No 3, would be exacerbated by the noted change in levels.

The appellant explains that, following refusal, he has discussed the scheme with his neighbours and has satisfied the objection raised. However, the receipt or otherwise of objections does not affect the consideration of the planning merits of a planning application (although it was relevant when considering the permitted development rights of the proposal). The appellant also states that he is willing to reduce the overall scale of the proposal. Nonetheless, the proposal by virtue of permitted development provisions, defined by Class A.1(g), is simply for an extension up to 6 metres in projection. This is therefore the size of the proposal that was considered by the Council and in any event an amended plan, suggesting a reduced projection, is not before me.

Consequently, the proposal would result in harm to the living conditions of neighbours, with respect to sunlight, daylight and outlook. The proposal would therefore conflict with policy PG3 of the Birmingham Development Plan [2017], policies DM2 and DM10 of the Development Management in [name] [2021] and the BDG. These seek, among other matters, for development to demonstrate high design quality and for development to provide adequate outlook and daylight.

For the above reasons the appeal is dismissed.