Erection of two storey front, side and rear extensions

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 10 March 2026 by D Harris-Watkins BA(Hons) PgD MRICS an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 26 March 2026 Appeal Ref: 6002001 117 Sheaf Lane, Birmingham B26 3EY • 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 Mr Mohammed Imran against the decision of Birmingham City Council. • The application Ref is 2025/03875/PA. • The development proposed is erection of two storey front, side and rear extensions. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. The description provided on the application form is extensive and includes information that does not describe acts of development. Whilst I have taken this into account, in the header above I have utilised the shortened version taken from the decision notice and the appeal form. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of 117 Sheaf Lane and the surrounding area. Reasons 4. The appeal site accommodates a two-storey semi-detached dwelling on a corner plot, that has been extended previously. Sheaf Lane is in a predominantly residential area, comprising of detached and semi-detached properties. The dwellings are set back from the highway by wide footways and verges, giving the area a spacious feel. A considerable number of the properties in the area have been extended in various designs and architectural styles. 5. The two-storey extension would increase the footprint of the dwelling considerably, extending the property’s side elevation towards the boundary. The proposed extension would make the host dwelling significantly larger than the attached neighbouring property and would unbalance the pair. Though the extension has been stepped back from the front elevation, would have a lower ridge height, and would use matching materials, due to the size and massing of the proposal, this would not sufficiently mitigate its impact on the appeal site. The proposal would not be sympathetic to the original form of the building, and consequently it would change the character and appearance of the appeal site. This would be in conflict with the design principles set out in the Birmingham Design Guide: Healthy Living Appeal Decision 6002001 2 and Working Places City Manual 2022, which requires consideration be given to the form and character of the existing house. 6. The extension of the dwelling towards its boundary and the significant increase in its massing would lead to a reduction of the openness of the corner plot. Also, the proposed side and rear elevations would be visually prominent due to its corner plot location, further increasing the dominance of the proposal on the street scene. These aspects all harm the character of the area. The appellant has suggested that the development will be partially screened from the public domain by the existing mature vegetation at the site. However, on my site visit it was evident some of the mature boundary vegetation highlighted in the appeal statement had already been removed, and therefore the extension would be clearly visible from the street scene. 7. In support of the appeal, I have been referred to several other developments within the local area for two-storey extensions, which I was able to view on my site visit. It was apparent that the design of their extensions were more sympathetic to the original form of the building, or, because of their location or design, such as by utilising single storey elements to soften their visual impact, they were less visually prominent than the proposal. I also note they were all decided within a different plan period, and as such different policies applied at the time of their determination. In any event I have determined the appeal on its own merits. 8. I conclude, the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the appeal site and surrounding area. Consequently, it would conflict with Policy PG3 of the Birmingham Development Plan 2017, which seeks that development is of a high design quality, which includes consideration of local context. 9. The Council have also referenced Policy DM2 of the Development Management in Birmingham – Development Plan Document 2021 in the reasons for refusal. This policy is primarily in relation to the protection of living conditions and as such I have not found it determinative in relation to the issue of character and appearance. The lack of harm to neighbouring occupiers living conditions is a neutral factor in the determination of the appeal. Other Matters 10. The appellant has stated that the proposal is sustainable development in relation to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). There would be some modest environmental, economic and social benefits associated with the proposed development, however due to the proposal being for an extension to an existing house this only attracts limited weight. The Framework also seeks that development should be sympathetic to local character, and I have found harm in this regard. 11. I also note the need for the extension, but I have no evidence to demonstrate a smaller extension with less harm would not also meet the needs of the appellants growing family. Appeal Decision 6002001 3 Conclusion 12. The proposed development would conflict with the development plan taken as a whole and there are no material considerations raised that would outweigh the conflict. For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed. D Harris-Watkins INSPECTOR