Erection of a single-storey rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit on 14 February 2018 by William Fieldhouse BA (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government Decision date: 21st February 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/P4605/D/17/3186639 2 Elm Drive, Birmingham B31 5JQ  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.  The appeal is made by Mr T Stanton against the decision of Birmingham City Council.  The application ref 2017/05393/PA, dated 14 June 2017, was refused by notice dated 10 August 2017.  The development proposed is the erection of a single-storey rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single-storey rear extension at 2 Elm Drive, Birmingham B31 5JQ in accordance with the terms of the application, ref 2017/05393/PA dated 14 June 2017, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plan ref 883.1. 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. Preliminary Matter 2. I am advised that, since this appeal was made, planning permission has been granted for a single-storey rear extension1. However, the scale and design of that development differs materially from the proposal before me which I have dealt with on its own particular merits. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect that the proposal would have on the living conditions in the two adjoining dwellings. Reasons 4. The proposal is for a single-storey extension across the full width of a three- storey terraced house. It would project 3 metres into the garden, and have a mono-pitched roof sloping down from the exising rear elevation. There are 1.8 1 Application ref 2017/09138/PA approved 19 December 2017. Appeal Decision APP/P4605/D/17/3186639 2 metre high close-boarded fences on the boundaries with the rear gardens of the two adjoining properties. 5. Paragraph 8.40 of the Birmingham Unitary Development Plan (2005) states that new building work should be designed so as to not cross the appropriate 45 degree line drawn from the nearest front or rear window (which is the main source of light to a habitable room) of adjoining properties. Paragraph 8.39 explains that this is intended to ensure that development does not seriously affect the outlook or daylight of those dwellings. In this case, the Council advises that the proposal would project beyond the relevant 45 degree lines from rear windows in 102 Sedgebourne Way by 2 metres and 4 Elm Drive by 1.4 metres. 6. However, the modest height of the proposal would mean that it would not protrude a great distance above the boundary fences, and being on the north side of the terrace it would not affect direct sunlight to the neighbouring properties. Therefore, whilst an upper part of the proposal would be clearly visible at an angle from the rear ground floor windows in each of the adjoining houses, I am not persuaded that it would seriously affect the outlook from or daylight in those two homes. 7. Therefore, whilst the proposal would fail to comply with the 45 degree code required by UDP paragraph 8.40, in this particular case the development would accord with UDP paragraph 8.39 and policy PG3 of the Birmingham Development Plan (2017) which requires development to respond to site conditions and local context. Furthermore, the proposal would be consistent with national policy that seeks to secure a good standard of amenity for existing occupants of land and buildings2. 8. In addition to the standard conditions relating to the timing of development and compliance with the approved plans, it is necessary for the external materials of the extension to match those on the existing house in order to safeguard the character and appearance of the area. Conclusion 9. For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. William Fieldhouse INSPECTOR 2 National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 17, 4th bullet point, and section 7.