Alterations to front elevation including revised bay windows and 2 storey atrium style entrance, 1st floor rear extension and 2 storey side extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 17 March 2026 by E Street BSc (Hons) MSc Decision by John Morrison BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 20th April 2026 Appeal Ref: 6002978 45 Webb Lane, Birmingham B28 0ED • 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 S Dayus against the decision of Birmingham City Council. • The application Ref is 2025/05430/PA. • The development proposed is described as ‘alterations to front elevation including revised bay windows and 2 storey atrium style entrance, 1st floor rear extension and 2 storey side extension ’. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal Procedure and Main Issues 2. The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal scheme. The main issues in regard to which are the effect of the proposal on a) the character and appearance of the area and b) the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers Number 43 and 47 Webb Lane (No 43 and No 47) with regard to outlook and light. Reasons for the Recommendation Character and Appearance 3. The appeal building was a detached bungalow which has been extended upwards and outwards to the rear through the prior approval regime. Surrounding dwellings feature semi-detached buildings and bungalows which appear to be relatively unaltered. Instances of extension are at single storey level. The rear elevations of these dwellings are generally consistent in their unaltered and therefore simplistic largely original appearance. These features add a modestly scaled and coherent feel to the area which makes a positive contribution to its character and appearance. 4. The first-floor extended element may be within the acceptability limits of the Birmingham Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). This is only guidance and the scheme must also accord with prevailing policy. Whilst the dwelling would retain its hierarchical appearance and detailing would be commensurate with its eventual size, the combination of the works would shroud and obscure both the original and extended dwelling in its entirety. It would not be a proportionate approach to an extension notwithstanding the planning history. It would result in a prominent and obtrusive extension detracting from the pleasant simplicity of the wider dwellings. Appeal Decision 6002978 2 5. The scheme would remain highly visible to occupiers of neighbouring dwellings given the intervisibility between gardens. Mature hedgerows in places aside. The appellant has referred to three different dwellings on Webb Lane which have sizable extensions and how this scheme would a sit therewith. However, I have only been provided with images of these examples, with no finer details on the policy, prevailing guidance or their planning status. These examples would not therefore lead me to a different conclusion on the above matters. 6. Resultantly, the overall scheme would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the area. As such, there would be conflict with Policy PG3 of the Birmingham Development Plan 2017 (BDP), Policy DM2 of the Development Management in Birmingham Development Plan Document 2022 (DPD), Birmingham Design Guide SPD and the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (the Framework). Together, these seek to ensure that development proposals are of a high-quality design and standard. Living Conditions 7. The scheme as originally approved exceeds the 45-degree code within the SPD. Whilst the footprint of the single storey element would remain the same, the increased height in combination with the blank façade would abut the boundary of both neighbouring buildings. It would directly impact their living spaces and the gardens immediately to the rear of the property in terms of outlook and light. Whilst the rest of the garden would remain unencumbered, the visual impression of the increased height would experience a strong feeling of enclosure within the buildings and the directly adjacent garden space. The separation distance between No 45 and No 43 would be reduced. Resultantly, the impact of the increased height would be mirrored to No 43 detrimentally harming the living conditions of the occupiers in terms of outlook and light. 8. Resultantly, the proposal would cause harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of No 47 and No 43. It would therefore conflict with Policy PG3 of the BDP, Policies DM2 and DM10 of the DPD, SPD and the Framework which, amongst other things, seek to ensure that living conditions of the occupiers of properties are protected. Conclusion and Recommendation 9. The appeal scheme would not comply with the development plan and I have been given no other compelling reason, taking into account other material considerations advanced, to deviate therefrom. I therefore recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. E Street APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 10. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. John Morrison INSPECTOR