Erection of a two-storey front and side extension and single storey front extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 7 August 2026 by Gary Deane BSc (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 14 August 2026 Appeal Ref: 6010594 23 Monksfield Avenue, Great Barr, Birmingham B43 6AP • 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 Khan against the decision of Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council. • The application reference is DC/25/71331. • The development proposed is the erection of a two-storey front and side extension and single storey front extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for the erection of a two-storey front and side extension and single storey front extension at 23 Monksfield Avenue, Great Barr, Birmingham B43 6AP in accordance with the terms of the application reference DC/25/71331 subject to the conditions set out in the schedule to this decision. Procedural matters 2. An application for costs has been made by the appellant against the Council, and also by the Council against the appellant. These applications are the subject of separate decisions. 3. The name of the appellant is given as S Ahmed on the planning appeal form, whereas the name appearing on the application form lodged with the Council is Mr Khan. As the right of appeal rests solely with the original applicant, I have proceeded on the basis that Mr Khan is the appellant in this case. 4. The address of the site is given as ‘Monskfield Avenue’ on the application form. I have treated this as a typographical error and used the correct spelling, ‘Monksfield Avenue’, in the above heading and in my decision. Main issue 5. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the local street scene. Reasons 6. The appeal property is a two-storey detached dwelling with a single storey front and side projection that is set back from the road within a predominantly residential area. It forms part of a row of detached houses on the same side of Monksfield Avenue, which vary in size, design, roof form and in their relationship with the highway. In several cases, these existing properties include extensions and Appeal Decision 6010594 2 alterations that are evident from the road. Consequently, the local street scene to which No 23 belongs has a varied built character. 7. The proposed two-storey front and side additions would increase the two-storey width of No 23 and bring part of the first floor closer to the road. This arrangement, coupled with the enlarged front-facing gable and altered roof would cause the dwelling to appear larger and gain some prominence in the streetscape. The projection of the single-storey front extension forward of the existing building line would accentuate this impression. Nevertheless, I saw that there is no strong common building line among properties on either side of the site, nor a consistent pattern in the position or dimensions of their front elevations and roof heights. In that varied context, the proposal would not appear dominant or incongruous within the local street scene. 8. The Council has referred to the particular relationship between No 23 and the neighbouring property broadly to the south, which is 21 Monksfield Avenue. From the Officer’s report, these properties appear to have shared some common features in their built and roof forms. However, I observed that No 21 has been extended and altered, with a single-storey front projection that is wider than the main house and light-coloured front walls. As a result, the broad similarity between the size, design and general appearance of these two dwellings is now less pronounced than may have previously been the case. 9. The proposal would raise the ridge of No 23 to broadly align with that of No 21 and alter the existing step in the roofline that reflects the change in local ground levels. Nevertheless, the two houses are detached buildings rather than a formally designed pair, and the wider roofscape along the same side of Monksfield Avenue is not experienced as a uniform group or with a stepped profile that includes consistent changes in height. When seen from the road, the new roof form of No 23 would be proportionate to the enlarged dwelling beneath it. It would not look out of place among the varied rooflines of existing properties along Monksfield Avenue. 10. With the removal of the existing garage and car port, undeveloped space would be introduced to one side of the finished dwelling that would increase the gap with the neighbouring property to the north. Although the proposal would significantly increase the two-storey scale and mass of No 23, the finished building would stand comfortably within the plot. It would not appear disproportionately large or intrusive in the streetscape, nor the site overdeveloped. Taken as a whole, the completed building would achieve an acceptable standard of design with a coherent composition that would be compatible with the mixed character of the street. 11. In reaching this conclusion, I have had regard to the approval of extensions at Nos 17, 19, 25, 29 and 39 Monksfield Avenue, which the appellant considers to be comparable with, if not larger than, the proposal before me. While these decisions lend some support to the appellant's contention that the Council has accepted the substantial enlargement of dwellings elsewhere in the street, the circumstances of each of these schemes differ to the development before me. I have therefore afforded these decisions limited weight in support of the appeal. 12. On the main issue, I conclude that the proposed development would not materially harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling or the local street scene. It therefore accords with Policy ENV3 of the Black Country Core Strategy, Policy SAD EOS 9 of The Site Allocations and Delivery Development Plan Document and Appeal Decision 6010594 3 the advice within the Council’s Revised Residential Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document. Together, these policies and guidance promote high-quality design and aim to ensure that extensions are proportionate to the scale of the existing dwelling and are compatible with their surroundings. Other matters 13. Interested parties raise additional concerns with regard to the potential effect of the proposal on privacy, outlook, light and the relationship with the boundary of the site. The Council found no unacceptable harm in these respects, with the reasons for these findings set out within the Officer’s report. From the evidence before me, I have no reason to reach a different conclusion on these matters. 14. The proposal would not necessarily set a precedent for other future developments since each case should be assessed on its own merits, as I have done in this instance. From what I saw, sufficient space would remain available within the site if the appeal scheme were to accommodate the level of off-street vehicle parking sought by the Council’s Highway Services. 15. I have also considered the appellant's comments in relation to discussions with the Council at the application stage. However, my decision in this appeal rests on the planning merits of the proposal and these matters do not alter my conclusions. Conditions 16. In addition to the standard time limit condition, a condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans is necessary in the interests of certainty. To safeguard the appearance of the development, a condition requiring the external materials to match those of the existing dwelling is also necessary. Conclusion 17. Overall, the proposal accords with the development plan when read as a whole, and there are no material considerations which indicate that the appeal should be determined otherwise than in accordance with it. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. Gary Deane INSPECTOR Schedule of conditions 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Refs: 2025_83_01, 2025_83_02, 2025_83_03, 2025_83_04 and 2025_83_05. 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.