Part single storey and part double storey extension to rear of detached dwelling, first floor extension to side with alterations to roof and alterations to driveway

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 18 February 2026 by Les Greenwood MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date:05 March 2026 Appeal Ref: 6001786 272 Eachelhurst Road, Sutton New Hall, Sutton Coldfield, Birmingham B76 1EP • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Muhammad Shaheen against the decision of Birmingham City Council. • The application Ref is 2025/02819/PA. • The development proposed is part single storey and part double storey extension to rear of detached dwelling, first floor extension to side with alterations to roof and alterations to driveway. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues are the effects of the proposal on: i) The character and appearance of the house and this part of Eachelhurst Road; and ii) Living conditions at the next door houses, 270 and 274 Eachelhurst Road, with regard to potential impacts on light and outlook. Reasons Character and appearance 3. 272 Eachelhurst Road is a detached, hipped roof house with a catslide roof to one side, sitting well back from the street within a row of similar houses. The proposal would replace the roof hips and cat-slide with full height gables to both sides, raise the main roof slightly and add a 1 to 2.5 storey extension at the back. 4. The Council’s Supplementary Planning Document Birmingham Design Guide - Healthy Living and Working Places City Manual (SPD) advises that extensions which seek to change the style of an existing roof from hipped to gable will not be supported due to the impact on the character of the surrounding area. Although this guidance generally resists hip to gable extensions, each proposal must still be considered on its merits in light of its particular context. 5. I note that many hip to gable extensions can be carried out without the need for a planning application, as permitted development1. This is therefore a fairly common way to extend houses. I understand that the nearby house at 280 Eachelhurst Road was extended in this way (and then further extended), but it is a rare example 1 Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)(England) Order 2015 Appeal Decision 6001786 2 on this street. No 272’s roof could perhaps also be extended under permitted development rights, but the current proposal goes well beyond this with its raised roof and first floor side extension. 6. The architectural character of the houses on this part of Eachelhurst Road is predominantly of well-detailed and modestly proportioned houses. The sloping side roofs (hips and cat slides) are a significant part of the design, helping to create space between the dwellings. Although the proposed increase in roof height at No 272 would not be particularly noticeable, the increased bulk created by the roof and side extensions, stretching nearly the full width of the plot, would be out of character with the finer design of neighbouring buildings, closing down the spacing. The resulting building would therefore stand out as an unsympathetic element in the street scene. The extensions to No 280 nearby have not so altered local character that the proposed extension to No 272 would fit in. Furthermore, the presence of some fully gabled buildings in the surrounding area does not significantly alter my assessment, which focusses on this particular part of Eachelhurst Road. 7. I have no objection to the rear extension in this respect, as it would be largely out of sight from the street. I nevertheless conclude that the proposed side and roof extensions would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the house and this part of Eachelhurst Road. The proposal therefore conflicts with policy PG3 of the Birmingham Development Plan (BDP), policy DM2 of the Development Management in Birmingham Development Plan Document (DMB), the SPD and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), which aim to secure a high quality of design that contributes to a strong sense of place. Living conditions 8. DMB Policy DM10 says that development will need to ensure adequate outlook and daylight to dwellings, in line with a 45 degree code. The detail of this is set out in the SPD, which states that that extensions must not project beyond a 45 degree line to be drawn in the horizontal plane from specified points on habitable room windows at neighbouring properties. 9. In this case, it appears that the proposed single storey part of the rear extension would slightly infringe the 45 degree line, as seen from a ground floor rear window at No 270, but this would be a low, flat roof extension so that the actual effects on light and outlook would be minimal. The ground floor extension would more substantially infringe the 45 degree line from a first floor rear window at No 270, but would be at a lower level so would not have any significant effect on that window. It appears that the proposal would not infringe, or at least not significantly infringe, a 45 degree line drawn from the nearest window at No 274 on the other side. Nos 270 and 274 would continue to benefit from relatively light, open aspects to the rear. 10. The proposed extensions would not, therefore, materially harm natural light or outlook at the back of Nos 270 and 274 despite marginal infringements of the 45 degree code. Notwithstanding this slight conflict with the detail of the SPD, I conclude that the proposal would adequately preserve living conditions at both those neighbouring properties. It accords in this respect with BDP policy PG3, DMB policies DM2 and DM10 and the Framework, which aim to avoid any unacceptable Appeal Decision 6001786 3 adverse impacts on the amenity of neighbours including in terms of sunlight, daylight, aspect and outlook. Conclusion 11. Although I have found in favour of the proposal in respect of the second main issue, my concerns regarding the first main issue are sufficiently compelling for me to find that the proposal conflicts with the development plan, taken as a whole. For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should not succeed. Les Greenwood INSPECTOR