Erection of a ground floor side and rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 4 August 2026 by Gary Deane BSc (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 10 August 2026 Appeal Ref: 6011588 7 Livingstone Road, Brandwood, Birmingham B14 6DJ • 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 Simon Round against the decision of Birmingham City Council. • The application reference is 2026/00547/PA. • The development proposed is the erection of a ground floor side and rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for the erection of a ground floor side and rear extension at 7 Livingstone Road, Brandwood, Birmingham B14 6DJ in accordance with the terms of the application ref 2026/00547/PA subject to the conditions set out in the schedule to this decision. Main issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of Nos 5 and 9 Livingstone Road with regard to light and outlook. Reasons 3. The proposal is for a single-storey side and rear extension to the appeal property, which is a mainly two-storey dwelling within a predominantly residential area. The new extension would project outwards from the main rear wall of the host building with side walls that would be alongside the boundaries shared with the properties on either side of the site, which are 5 and 9 Livingstone Road. 4. The Council states that the proposal does not comply with the 45-degree code (the code) for house extensions, which is a line drawn at this angle from the nearest primary habitable room window towards the new development. The Council’s City Note LW-4 of the Birmingham Design Guide (BDG) – Healthy Living and Working Places City Manual notes that the code should be used to reduce the potential impact on neighbouring properties and that a proposal that exceeds this trajectory will not be supported. The appellant contests the Council’s interpretation of the code and how it should be applied to both Nos 5 and 9. I have taken these differing approaches into account in my assessment of the proposal. 5. The BDG Principles Document nevertheless recognises that the code, while a useful tool, can be applied with some flexibility where residential amenity is not compromised. It also notes that proposals should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. While the appellant has referred me to other appeal decisions, each development must be considered on its own planning merits, which I have done. Appeal Decision 6011588 2 6. There would be some loss of sunlight and daylight to the rear and side of No 5 given the position of the proposed extension to the south of this neighbouring detached property. However, the proposal would be modest in height and set back from the shared boundary between Nos 5 and 7. Furthermore, an existing fence and established planting alongside this boundary already influence the light reaching the rear windows of No 5 and parts of its garden. Given those circumstances, any additional loss of daylight or sunlight would be limited. 7. From my observations, only the upper part of the new extension would be evident from the rear windows and back garden of No 5. Moreover, the existing boundary fence and greenery alongside the boundary with the site would partly screen and visually soften the appearance of the proposed development. The main direction of outlook from the rear windows of No 5, which would be towards the boundary fence and across the back garden, would be largely unaffected. Consequently, the proposal would not appear unduly dominant. 8. As the proposed extension would lie to the north of No 9 and be modest in height, any reduction in sunlight and daylight would be minimal. Moreover, the principal outlook from the rear conservatory and external patio of No 9, across the rear garden, would remain largely unchanged. While the upper part of the proposal would be clearly visible from these areas, its limited height and modest rearward projection would ensure that it would not be overbearing. 9. Given these findings, the proposal would not conflict with the main purpose of applying the code, which is to safeguard residential amenity. Applying the flexibility referred to within the BDG, I conclude that a technical conflict with the code, if one were to arise, would not in itself justify the refusal of planning permission. 10. On the main issue, I conclude that the proposed development would not cause unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of Nos 5 and 9. As such, it accords with Policy PG3 of the Birmingham Development Plan 2031, the BDG and Policies DM2 and DM10 of the Development Management in Birmingham Development Plan Document, insofar as they aim to protect residential amenity. It is also consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework, which states that development should create places with a high standard of amenity for users. 11. An interested party raises additional concern with regard to drainage and whether roof access would be hindered by the proposal. There is no persuasive evidence before me that the proposed extension would result in water being discharged onto neighbouring land. Issues relating to roof access are largely private matters between the parties and therefore attract limited weight. 12. In addition to the standard time limit condition, it is necessary to impose a condition that requires the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans for certainty. To ensure the satisfactory appearance of the development, a condition is imposed to require that the external materials match those of the existing building, as proposed. 13. Overall, there are no material considerations that indicate that the development should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. Gary Deane INSPECTOR Appeal Decision 6011588 3 Appeal Ref: 6011588 7 Livingstone Road, Brandwood, Birmingham B14 6DJ 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 PL490-01 and PL490-02. 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.