Side extension and canopy at 2 St Margarets Road, Great Barr, Birmingham

“The application seeks planning permission for a proposed two-storey side extension, single-storey front extension and canopy to the front elevation of the existing dwelling. The overall dimensions of the extensions would be 9.2m deep by 7.6m wide by 7.5m high.”

“The proposed development would create additional living accommodation at ground floor level including a sitting room, utility room and WC together with alterations to the existing internal layout. At first floor level the proposal would provide an additional bedroom and en-suite accommodation, increasing the dwelling from a three-bedroom property to a four-bedroom property.”

“The Application Site 5.1 The application property is a semi-detached dwellinghouse situated on a prominent corner plot at the junction of St Margarets Road and Scott Road, Great Barr. The surrounding area is residential in character and as characterised by semi-detached dwellings of a similar appearance to the applicant’s property, although many of these have been extended and altered over time.”

“Highways have raised no objections to the proposal. The consultation response confirms that, in accordance with Council standards, a three to four- bedroom dwelling requires two off-street parking spaces. The proposed development does not increase the parking requirement beyond that standard, and the driveway retains sufficient space to accommodate the development.”

“The application has been publicised by seven neighbour notification letters. One objection has been received and is summarised below: a. Loss of light b. The proposed extension would be overbearing and oppressive. c. The originally proposed conservatory would impact upon outlook from the neighbouring kitchen and living room; d. The originally proposed conservatory would adversely affect privacy and outlook due to the size of the neighbouring garden.”

“Other matters relating to property boundaries are civil matters and do not constitute material planning considerations.”

“Neither the applicant nor the objector(s) were in attendance at the meeting.”

“Members were advised that “loss of light” could not be taken into consideration when determining the landing window as the room in question was not an habitable room.”

“Members were satisfied with the proposals and were minded to approve the application, subject to the conditions recommended by the Executive Director-Place.”