Proposed rear single storey rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 28 April 2026 by D Harris-Watkins BA(Hons) PgD MRICS an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 19 May 2026 Appeal Ref: 6006726 223 Pretoria Road, Birmingham B9 5LN • 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. Z Ali against the decision of Birmingham City Council. • The application Ref is 2025/06765/PA. • The development is described as proposed rear single storey rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. It was evident on my site visit that an element of construction works has already been carried out to the rear of the property. For the avoidance of doubt, I have determined the appeal on the plans before me. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the proposed developments effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of 221 and 225 Pretoria Road, with particular reference to outlook and light. Reasons 4. The appeal site comprises a two-storey mid terraced property with a two-storey rear outrigger. It is apparent from the appeal submission that there had previously been a single storey extension, but this has since been demolished. The proposal is for a larger single storey extension than the demolished. 5. The Officer’s Report considers the effect of the proposal on No.221 as unacceptable but concludes against No.225. In relation to No.221, currently there is no boundary fence between No.221 and No.223. The outlook from the rear of No.221 would previously have been along the wall of the demolished single storey extension and thereon along a close boarded fence. The closest element of No.221 to the proposal has no ground floor windows facing towards the proposed extension. Due to the orientation of the dwellings and relationship between them, I do not find harm in relation to outlook and light to No.221. 6. It is not disputed between the Council and the appellant that the ’45-degree code’ as outlined in the Birmingham Design Guide: Healthy Living and Working Places City Manual 2022 (the SPD), would be breached between the proposed extension and No.225. Though the SPD does not form part of the development plan it is a material consideration. The same principles are also reflected within Policy DM10 Appeal Decision 6006726 2 of the Development Management in Birmingham – Development Plan Document 2021 (the DPD), which does form part of the development plan. 7. The boundary between No.223 and No.225 currently comprises of a close boarded fence. I note the proposal has been reduced in length compared to the previous application1, however it would extend above the fenceline in closer proximity to the boundary than the demolished extension. Due to the existing relationship of No.225’s ground floor windows to the fenceline and No.223, I find there would be negligible harm to their living conditions with regard to outlook. 8. However, due to the proposed extensions massing, location and the orientation of the dwellings this would result in a loss of light to the rear ground floor windows of No.225, particularly in the winter months when the sun is lower in the sky. The resultant reduction in light would make the room appear gloomier. Consequently, the increase in overshadowing the ground floor windows would experience, would result in an unacceptable adverse impact on the occupiers’ living conditions. 9. The appellant has argued the white coloured render of the proposed extension would minimise the loss of light, however this would have very limited effect and does not sufficiently mitigate the harm identified. 10. I conclude the development would be unacceptably harmful to the living conditions of the occupiers of No 225 in relation to loss of light. This would be in conflict with Policy DM10 and Policy DM2 both of the DPD, as well as Policy PG3 of the Birmingham Development Plan 2017, which amongst other things seek to protect the living conditions of neighbouring properties, and that developments design responds to site conditions. The proposal would also be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, which seek to protect a high standard of living conditions. Other Matters 11. In support of the appeal the appellant has highlighted a rear extension at 227 Pretoria Road. Although I have not been provided with the full details, including whether planning permission was obtained or otherwise. As such I cannot determine whether it is directly comparable to the appeal. In any event I have determined the appeal on its own merits. 12. Concerns have been raised with the behaviour of the Council through the course of the application, however that is a dispute that should be resolved outside of this appeal. 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. 1 Application Reference: 25/05014/PA Appeal Decision 6006726 3 Conclusion 13. The proposed development conflicts with the development plan, and there are no material considerations raised, including the Framework, that would outweigh that harm. For these reasons, the appeal should be dismissed. D Harris-Watkins INSPECTOR