Appeal 6004172

The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for the variation of condition No. 1 (Plans) following planning approval PL/2021/02770/MINFHO dated 25 January 2023 for a two storey front side and rear extension at [site address] , Solihull, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/2025/01579/VAR, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following

The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in accordance with the details shown on the submitted plans, numbers: 101 Proposed Site Plan, 104 [name], 105 [name] and 107 Proposed Block Plan.

The external facing materials of the development hereby approved shall match in colour, texture and brick bond those of the existing building.

The roof area of the extension hereby permitted shall not be used as a balcony, roof garden or similar amenity area.

Notwithstanding any indications given on the approved drawings, no first-floor side facing windows are authorised by this permission.

An application for costs has been made by [name] against Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council. This is the subject of a separate decision.

The Council asserts that the plans are inaccurate. In reading the transcript of the Planning Committee minutes, it appears that this concern relates to the relationship of the proposal to [address] (No 30) and a garage at [address]. Whilst the relationship to off-site features is questioned by the Council there appears to be no question as to the accuracy of the proposed plans themselves.

Off-site features shown on the proposed site plan are reliant on the accuracy of [name] maps. This perhaps explains why the garage of No 28 is seen to be less pronounced on site than is shown on the proposed site plan and this has not factored into my assessment of the scheme. The indicative street elevation drawing shows the relationship of the proposal with No 30. I find this to be drawn with sufficient accuracy to understand the effects of the proposed changes. As such, the plans and the details shown on and off-site, are of sufficient accuracy to enable a full assessment to be made.

The appellant states that construction of the extensions started in November, and I also observed that the development had commenced on my site visit. However, the work had not advanced to a point that the proposed changes are retrospective in nature.

Planning permission was given in 2023 for a two-storey front, side and rear extension. The appeal proposal seeks to vary the approved plan condition in proposing an increase to the height of the roof by 0.2 metres, the addition of a circular window and to rationalise the contradictory floor plans and elevations to create a consistent width for the front gable of 5.5 metres. This appeal seeks for the proposal to be carried out through the implementation of the revised plans in variance to the approved plans list of condition 1.

The Council’s reason for refusal does not clearly explain the anticipated effects of the proposed changes on the neighbouring occupier. Therefore, I have determined the main issues in consideration of all submitted evidence, including the Committee transcript.

As such, the main issues are the effects that varying the condition would have on: • the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area, and • the living conditions of occupiers of No 30, regarding sunlight, daylight and outlook.

[address] is a residential street consisting of a variety of traditional housing styles. These are predominantly two-storey interwar housing, with wide and deep plots, in a tree lined setting. The appeal site is a corner plot, slightly set back from No 30, but which accords with the generally consistent front building line.

The approved extensions would fundamentally alter the design of the existing property, with a new central projecting gable, incorporating porch canopy and balcony. The approved scheme has been previously found, by the Council, to rationalise and enhance the overall appearance of the dwelling with a considered, unified design.

The proposed changes include raising the roofline by 20cms, addition of a circular window to the front projecting gable at second floor and align the floorplans and elevations to show a consistent front gable width. These changes are minimal and have no material bearing on the overall design and appearance of the approved scheme. As the revised details would make only minor alterations to the approved design the changes would not adversely affect the character and appearance of the area.

Accordingly, the proposed alterations would result in a marginally altered design that would continue to enhance the appearance of the existing dwelling and make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area. As such, the proposal would accord with policy P15 of the Solihull Local Plan (LP) [2013], with respect to matters of character and appearance. These seek, among other matters, for development to conserve and enhance local character, distinctiveness and streetscape quality ensuring that details such as massing respect the surrounding built environment.

The neighbouring property, at No 30, is a tall two storey dwelling. This appears to be sited on slightly raised ground in comparison to the appeal site. Due to its much taller overall height and the minor change in local land levels, the eaves are similar in height to the ridge of the existing dwelling. No 30 has a side window at second floor that overlooks the site. As its side elevation faces east, morning sunlight would fall on this window. The occupiers of No 30 explains this room is used as an office and bedroom and therefore is a regarded as a habitable room in my

Interested parties have suggested that the ground to eaves height of No 30 is 7.14 metres. The proposed development would have a ground to ridge height of 8.2 metres, meaning on these measurements that the ridge of the proposed dwelling would be around one metre higher than the eaves of No 30. These measurements are not disputed by the appellant, but do not appear to fully account for the apparent land level difference between the plots. My own observations on site have found that the side window’s cill height is almost level with the eaves line of No 30 and this cill would therefore be lower than the ridge height of the proposal, but only by a small amount due to the land level change.

The two properties would have a small separation distance, but a small gap would be evident due to the closest part of the proposal being single-storey and the roof being a hipped roof design. As such the closest part of the proposed roof would be its eaves, with the proposed roof gaining in height as it slopes up and away from the shared boundary. The proposed amendments would increase the ridge height of the host dwelling. Nonetheless, the variance in height would be minor and only be increased by a small extent in comparison to the approved scheme.

The side window of No 30 borrows sunlight and daylight, and takes in a view directly over, the appeal site. The submitted street elevation drawing demonstrates that the approved extension would place the roof closer to the neighbour’s window. This also shows, with red and blue mark-up lines, the location of the approved ridge line and the existing ridge line respectively. The approved and altered roof would be of a hipped design with the highest part set away from the shared boundary. The street elevation drawing shows that substantial light levels would still reach the bedroom, with only a negligible change in sunlight and daylight received by this room. Furthermore, due to the minor change in the ridge height from the approved plans, the outlook from this window would also be only marginally reduced.

Accordingly, the proposed alterations would have a minimal further effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 30 with respect to sunlight, daylight and outlook. Consequently, the proposal would comply with LP policies P14 which seek, among other matters, to permit development that would respect the amenity of existing occupiers and would be a good neighbour.

Interested parties have raised concerns with respect to the design of the proposal, overlooking from the front balcony, parking issues, highway safety, the effects of the building if it were to change to a House in [name] and overshadowing, overlooking and over-domination of the rear garden of No 30. However, these matters relate to the impact of the approved scheme and were considered as part of the original application. The key elements of that scheme have not materially changed in the current proposal. Subsequently, this appeal has only focussed on the effects of the proposed changes.

I have deleted the originally applied three-year commencement condition as development has already commenced. The conditions for matching materials, and to a prevent rooftop garden area and further side windows are reimposed as they remain necessary in the interests of the character and appearance of the area and in protecting neighbour’s living conditions.

For the above reasons, the appeal is allowed.