Appeal 6008263

The appeal is dismissed.

The council’s description more accurately describes the development on the plans. Notwithstanding the description of development set out above, which is taken from the application form, it is clear from the plans and accompanying details that the development comprises a single storey rear extension, two storey rear extension, rear dormer windows, replacement front bay window, front alterations and erection of a detached outbuilding to the rear. The council dealt with the proposal on this basis and so have I.

The application form states the development was started in August 2025 and has yet to be finished. On my site visit, I saw that all elements of the development except the outbuilding appeared to be completed in accordance with the plans before me, noting that the ‘existing’ plans are identical to the ‘proposed’. I have therefore considered the appeal on the basis that the development has already taken place with the exception of the outbuilding.

The ‘L’ shaped dormer was constructed on the appellant’s understanding that it would be permitted development although this has not been demonstrated. This appeal relates to the development as a whole and it is not within my remit to formally determine whether the dormer is permitted development. If the appellant wishes to ascertain whether the development is lawful, they may make an application under section 191 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

The council’s decision notice relates to the rear extensions only and it is clear from its submissions that it does not have any concerns about the replacement front bay window, front alterations and erection of detached outbuilding to the rear. On this basis, the main issues are the effect of the single storey, two storey and dormer extensions on: • the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area; and • the living conditions of the occupiers of No 187 [site address] (No 187) with particular regard to outlook and daylight.

The appeal site comprises a two-storey semi-detached dwelling with converted loft space in an attractive residential neighbourhood. The semi-detached pairings are positioned closely together on the same front building line so that the street scene appears as a long terrace gradually stepping up the incline of the street. Consistent front elevations with bay windows and regular spacing provide a degree of uniformity and establish a pattern to the street scene.

The rear elevations reflect the evolution of housing needs with two storey rear outriggers and numerous examples of further extensions comprising a mixture of single storey, two storey and dormer extensions in this and neighbouring streets. The council note that similar development at No 181 [site address] is unauthorised. Development at No 183 [site address] , also noted by the council, plus other examples raised by the appellant, was granted consent prior to the adoption of the Birmingham Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2022) (SPD). The SPD sets out a number of design principles reinforcing the importance of high-quality design focussed upon the individual context of a site and surrounding character as already required by the Birmingham Development Plan 2031 (the Local Plan).

None of the neighbouring or nearby examples are accompanied by an outbuilding of the scale and construction proposed at the appeal site. As such, in considering the impact of the development upon the character of the site and surrounding area, none are directly comparable in determining this appeal.

The appellant suggests that the L-shaped dormer benefits from permitted development or could be altered to be permitted development. Nonetheless, there is no substantive evidence before me, including a Lawful Development Certificate, that demonstrates that this is, or would be the case. This limits the weight I can attribute to the fallback development.

The single storey extension incorporates the footprint of a previous small single storey lean-to beyond the outrigger. Its depth, form and resulting scale are visually prominent from the rear of the site and as a projection from neighbouring properties. In conjunction with the rear development to the first floor and roofscape, the development dominates the original dwelling to the detriment of its character and appearance. Within such close proximity to the proposed outbuilding, the scale of the development is significant and goes beyond that evidenced at nearby sites. It is therefore inconsistent with the character of the surrounding area.

The development is largely screened from the public realm with only a narrow view of the side elevation along a side passage, and has minimal impact upon the street scene which retains its quality appearance. However, this is not justification for the harm generated to the rear elevation and the site as a whole.

For the reasons set out above, the development is contrary to Policy PG3 of the Local Plan which expects all development to be of a high design quality reflecting local distinctiveness and responding to site conditions and context.

The development is also contrary to the SPD and policy DM2 of the Development Management in Birmingham Development Plan Document (DPD) (2021) both of which reinforce the need for high quality design in development, and the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) (NPPF) which seeks to ensure that development is visually attractive and sympathetic to local character.

No 187 [site address] (No 187) has an existing first floor rear elevation window. The appellant has provided evidence that the window in question serves a bathroom and is obscurely glazed. Having seen this window at my site visit and given that a bathroom is not a habitable room and its outlook is restricted by the obscurity of the glazing, I do not find material harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of No [address] of loss of outlook and daylight to this window.

For the above reason, the development does not conflict with Policy PG3 of the Local Plan, policies DM2 and DM10 of the DPD, the SPD, or the NPPF which seek to ensure that the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers are preserved.

For the reasons given above, the appeal should be dismissed.