Proposed single storey side extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 13 July 2026 by Eleni Marshall BSc (hons) MSc FRICS FAAV MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 20 July 2026 Appeal Ref: 6010633 16 Ashdale Drive, Birmingham, B14 4TU • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mrs Afshan Ahmed against Birmingham City Council. • The application Ref is 2026/01461/PA. • The development proposed is proposed single storey side extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the impact of the proposal upon the appearance of the host dwelling and the street scene. Reasons 3. The appeal site is a semi-detached property which stands within a residential area on a corner plot within Ashdale Drive which is typically characterised by properties of a similar design and scale. The host dwelling benefits from an existing flat roof extension to the side and rear. The proposal seeks planning permission for the erection of a single storey side extension which is stated to be required based upon the needs of the appellant’s family. The proposal would not result in any impact to neighbouring residential amenity and there are no objections relating to other matters such as parking arrangements. 4. The Council’s refusal reason is based solely upon the scale of the proposal in the context of the host dwelling, including its appearance, as well as the street scene. Permission is noted to have previously been granted (2025/05415/PA) for a 3.3 metre side extension where consideration was given, during that determination, as to the existing 1.8 metre side extension and what was then an additional 1.5 metres. This was considered to not have significant impact above the existing situation on site. The fallback position, in the event this appeal failed, by virtue of 2025/05415/PA is therefore specifically acknowledged as part of this appeal. 5. The proposal that is before me would be in the region of 1.2 metres wider than the scheme approved by virtue of 2025/05415/PA. The proposal would result in an additional 2.7 metres (width) to the existing 1.8 metre side extension off the host dwelling. The already approved proposal would not have compromised the existing character or have negative impact on the general street scene, however, whilst I appreciate that compared to the fallback position the appellant contends that the proposal would only add a further 1.2 metres it is still a relevant consideration that the revised proposal would result in a single storey extension which would have a Appeal Decision 6010633 2 width in the region of 4.5 metres, much closer to the side boundary of the site, which would result in a visually prominent addition within the street scene. 6. I acknowledge that the proposal would not affect any sight lines but based upon my observations the slab level of the host dwelling is visually higher than the pavement/road along Ashdale Drive to the side of the property. I also find that the scale and massing of the proposal, as a result of the proposed width, would take built form much closer to the side boundary which would be more prominent and visually significant due to the difference in site levels which would exacerbate perception as to scale from within the street scene. In addition to this, the extension would then protrude, significantly, forward of the building line which is uniform along this section of Ashdale Close defined by the front elevations of the four pairs of semidetached dwellings immediately to the rear of the appeal site. 7. The projection forward of the building line, combined with the site levels as discussed, would exacerbate the impact of the proposal in the context of the host dwelling itself and the immediate street scene. Overall, therefore, notwithstanding my acknowledgement of the appellant’s fallback position by virtue of 2025/05415/PA, I find that, in this case, a further 1.2 metres would comparably make a single storey side extension in this location unacceptable for the reasons set out. The proposal would not be subservient in appearance taking into account the notable width when viewed in the context of the host dwelling and would be out of scale within the context of the host dwelling and its siting within a prominent plot. 8. The appellant comments that Birmingham City Council have approved householder applications on corner plots notwithstanding their prominence as well as referring to similar decisions having been made by the Planning Inspectorate - though no examples are specifically provided within the appeal submission. The principle of an extension within the appeal site, to the side of the property, is not the determinative issue which has resulted in refusal. The Council have granted planning permission for a smaller side extension at the appeal site demonstrating that corner plots are, in some cases, able to undergo sympathetic extension and alteration in principle but ultimately, I find there is strong reason for refusing a subsequent, incrementally, larger proposal. The proposal would result in clear harm due to the additionally proposed width for the reasons I have outlined above. 9. I respect that the proposal is stated to be intended for the benefit of the appellant’s mother to enable accommodation of her health requirements. There is no supporting medical evidence before me as part of this appeal, however, I recognise that in principle the development would be in line with the provisions of National and Local Policy favouring safe, inclusive, accessible and healthy accommodation for those with protected characteristics. Such circumstances are a strong material consideration; however, they still fall to be considered within a balance as to the harm identified in the context of the main issue. 10. In this case I do not consider, in planning terms, the interference with the host dwelling and the street scene that would result from the appeal proposal is proportionate to the material needs of the appellant’s family notwithstanding the statements made as to the need for enhanced accommodation. Ultimately, I take the view that these transient personal circumstances, whilst material and which have been taken into account, are not sufficient to outweigh the significant planning issues which I have identified in the context of this appeal. I find nothing to divert me from my overall conclusion that the appeal should be dismissed given that I find Appeal Decision 6010633 3 the proposal would be significantly out of scale with the host dwelling and would dominate its appearance as well as that of the street scene due to the characteristics and setting of the site which I have outlined above. 11. The proposal would be contrary to Birmingham Development Plan 2017 Policy PG3 which requires new development to demonstrate high design quality that responds to the site conditions and the local area context. The proposal would also be contrary to Development Management in Birmingham Development Plan Document 2021, Policy DM2, which requires development to be appropriate to its location as well as paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 which seeks to ensure that developments are sympathetic to local character and will function well and will add to the overall quality of the area. 12. The proposal would also be contrary to the guidance set out within the Birmingham Design Guide 2022, City Note LW-18 (Location of Extensions). City Note LW-18 acknowledges that side extensions can have a significant effect on the street scene, however, I do not find that that guidance is geared solely towards two storey extensions or that the Council have applied the guidance within the City Note akin to a two-storey extension. The City Note is clear in its reference to side extensions overall as having a potential significant effect on the street scene before continuing to discuss and advise as to the key considerations for extensions on corner plots (paragraph 2.83 to 2.85) inclusive. 13. The proposal would be contrary to that guidance insofar as the proposal would extend notably beyond an established building line with the impact, and objective, of the City Note seeking to avoid negative impact to the host dwelling and street character, respectively. A refusal, and subsequent dismissal of this appeal, on design guide grounds is based on clear substantive harm due to the site characteristics and the increased width of the proposal compared to the acknowledged fallback as a material consideration for the reasons set out. Conclusion 14. For the reasons outlined above, and taking into account all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Eleni Marshall INSPECTOR