Appeal 6004902

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for First floor side extension, single storey rear infill extension with amendment to glazing and roof of existing rear extension. Loft dormer to rear for en-suite at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/2025/01965/MINFHO and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development shall be carried out in accordance with the following five approved plans by [name] dated 15/10/2025 titled as follows: (i) [name] (3 of 8); (ii) Existing and [name] (4 of 8); (iii) Existing and [name] (5 of 8); (iv) Existing and [name] (6 of 8); (iv) Section and Roof Plan (7 of 8).

Any parts of side-facing windows in the development hereby approved shall be non-opening and obscure glazed.

An application for costs was made by [name] against Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council and this is the subject of a separate Decision.

The refusal reason states that the proposal ‘would result in an additional which wouldn’t respect the character of the local amenity’. The significance of this statement is addressed in the costs application, but appears, according to the officer report, to refer to the effect of the development upon the street scene, and I have determined the matter accordingly.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area and street scene.

The appeal site, [site address] , (No.199) is a substantial two storey semi-detached dwelling likely dating from the late Victorian or Edwardian period. It is located in an established residential area with a mix of housing typologies, ages and size ranged along [address], a road largely characterised by housing in good-sized plots and a verdant street setting. No.199 sits within a small group of very similar dwellings and has been extended previously at ground floor level; a full-depth garage infilling to the side boundary with its neighbour, No.201, and a dining area attached behind the original two-storey rear outrigger. This has created a small courtyard area which would be infilled by the replacement rear extension. The garage would be replaced by a two-storey side extension for the full depth of the original dwelling with the same footprint as the garage whereas the rear extension would be set approximately 1m from the boundary with No.201. Both properties sit within a number of similar houses displaying a range of alterations some including side extensions.

The Council suggest the proposal would not overshadow or overlook adjoining users but also refer to Policy P15 of the Solihull Local Plan 2013 (SLP) and the Council’s house extension guidelines. From a reading of the officer report it is apparent that the main issue for the Council is the risk of a ‘terracing effect’ arising from the closure of gaps between the dwelling pairs. However, the impact of side extensions will vary according to the circumstances of each building and setting. In this case, whilst the side extension of No.199 would infill to the boundary, there would still remain a significant separation distance from the flank wall of No.201 beyond the boundary line. In addition the side extension would be set down slightly from the main roof and also set back but in a complementary design, as is the case with other nearby side extensions. The significant set-back from [address] supports the articulation of No.199 and nearby houses as identifiable dwellings within the wider street setting despite their similar age, design and alignment. The proposal would have a similar effect upon the street scene as the side extension to No.203; in that case however, although the gap with the neighbouring dwelling (No.205) is entirely closed at ground level, this does not ‘terrace’ the adjacent houses.

Overall the quality of the streetscape would not be adversely affected. I therefore conclude that there would be little conflict with policy P15 of the SLP which, at (i) seeks to conserve and enhance local character, distinctiveness and streetscape quality.

I have noted some third-party representations as to the detail of certain elements of the proposal1. However, by their nature, these points have been wrapped within my overall consideration of the proposal and the setting within which it is found.

Consistent with housing typologies of the late Victorian and Edwardian era, the original dwellings have side-facing windows on opposite sides of the boundary. I note comments concerning the possibility of a side extension to No.201 being carried out. Whilst the neighbour suggestion of amendments to the proposal such that the staircase should be lit from above and not conflict with these suggested future works is plainly intended to be helpful, such an amendment, whilst minor and immaterial to the main issue, is not before me to consider. In any event, the form the suggested extension would take2 appears to be largely conjectural such that it attracts little weight as a material issue overall.

The proposal would therefore retain a side window in the side extension but this would lie immediately adjacent to the boundary line and could worsen any existing privacy concerns due to its proximity and height. The opportunity to impose conditions to restrict outlook3 from this new window is a consideration which adds a little weight in favour of the works as it would replace a window which is uncontrolled by such conditions.

I have found that the quality of the streetscape in the area would not be adversely affected such that the proposal would not conflict with the identified policies nor, therefore, with the development plan taken as a whole. Other matters raised do not alter that conclusion, consequently my reasoning directs that having taken all matters raised into account, the appeal should succeed subject to the usual timing and plans condition and, as my reasoning explains, a condition in relation to side-facing windows is also necessary.