Appeal 6005391

The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for hip to gable loft conversion with rear dormer and roof lights to front elevation, to include internal modification at first floor to allow for access to proposed loft space and new window to first floor side elevation) at [site address] [site address] , [name], Solihull, [postcode] Ref: PL/2025/01372/MINFHO and the plans submitted with it subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission;

The development hereby permitted shall be maintained in accordance with the following approved plans: location plan (planning portal reference PP- 14174652v1) and combined plans (site plan, proposed floor plans and proposed elevations – MB169 01 – H);

The external materials of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling;

Demolition or construction works shall take place only between 08:00 – 18:00 on Monday to Friday, 08:00 – 13:00 on Saturdays and shall not take place at any time on Sundays or on Bank or Public Holidays;

The extension hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the new window in the first-floor side elevation has been fitted with obscured glazing. No part of that window, which is less than 1.7 metres above the floor of the room in which it is installed, shall be capable of being opened. Details of the type of obscured glazing shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before the window is installed and once installed the obscured glazing shall be retained thereafter.

I have utilised the Council’s description of the proposal as I find it describes the proposal more concisely.

The main issues are the impact of the proposal upon the character and visual amenity of the original dwelling, the pair of semi-detached dwellings and the street scene.

The appeal site is a semi-detached property located within a residential area that is largely characterised by semi-detached dwellings that are of a similar character and appearance, largely as a result of symmetrical, hipped, roof forms. Whilst symmetry is not a protected design feature in itself it is, ultimately, a characteristic of [site address] which is notably consistent and, therefore, any changes have the capability of being an incongruous addition to the street scene where they would ultimately be in the minority in terms of design, character and appearance. Furthermore, changes to one side of a semi-detached pair will alter the symmetry of that pair which can then further exacerbate proposed changes in this context.

At the time of my site visit I noted, a short distance along [site address] from the appeal site, that of 28 [site address] which is also highlighted within the appellant’s statement of case. The property has undergone a hip to gable extension combined with a dormer which has resulted in a loft conversion. The appellant has provided a copy of the certificate of lawfulness (PL/2021/00323/CLOPUD) albeit no copies of the certified plans are provided as part of that appendix. Despite this, the inclusion of the certificate is still demonstrative of the ability of properties within the locality to undertake amendments, including hip to gable extensions incorporating a loft conversion and dormer, beyond the control of the Council as a result of permitted development rights. 28 [site address] , as built, appears not dissimilar in basic terms to the proposal which is before me at the appeal site.

The appellant has also included a second example, from [address], which is also acknowledged to have certified (PL/2020/00846/CLOPUD) a hip to gable conversion and a rear dormer. At the time of my site visit these works had also been completed and I also noted further, more minor, roof alterations along [site address] itself albeit these have maintained the hip roof structure. The examples provided, by the appellant, are noted to be part of the character of the area but I find that, overwhelmingly, the distinctive character of the area is created by pairs of symmetrical semi-detached dwellings with hipped roof structure. The proposal would, therefore, unbalance the symmetry between the pair of semi-detached dwellings and appear as an incongruous addition to the street scene.

Solihull Local Plan 2013 (LP) Policy P15 is clear that development proposals should achieve good quality design which meets a list of key principles. The first key principle is that the proposal should conserve and enhance local character, distinctiveness and streetscape quality and ensure that the scale, massing, density, layout and materials of the development respect the surrounding built environment. In addition to this, the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (the Framework) is clear within paragraph 135, that proposals should be sympathetic to local character. Cumulatively, I find that the hip to gable loft conversion with a rear dormer would fail to respect the character of the area as well as failing to respect the character of the original dwelling which would result in a discordant structure. [name] acknowledge examples, discussed above, of similar proposals having been undertaken within the locality I find that these examples do still stand out, within the street scene, as incongruous additions overall.

The proposal would also be contrary to the guidance set out within the House Extensions Guidelines Supplementary Planning Document 2010 (SPD) which seeks to avoid large box dormers on rear elevations as well as acknowledging that care must be taken to not upset the symmetry of the architectural unit with regard to semi-detached dwellings. The proposal would, however, be consistent with some elements of the SPD with regard to the dormer being set down from the ridge and above the eave lines but, cumulatively, the proposal would still result in notable additional massing at roof level for the host dwelling. The bulk, scale, massing and design would not realistically respect the character of the host dwelling and would detract from the visual amenity of the appeal site.

The proposal has been submitted as a planning application and, therefore, it falls to consider the proposal against the relevant Local Plan as is the starting point for determination taking into account all other material considerations. Assessed against the Local Plan policies, discussed above, I find that the proposal would be contrary to their objectives as well as being contrary to the Framework and the guidance set out within the SPD. Despite this, I find that it is a material consideration that, as evidenced by the appellant, in the event this appeal failed the appeal site benefits from a fallback position by virtue of Schedule 2, Part 1 Class B (additions etc to the roof of a dwellinghouse) of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (the GDPO).

There is no evidence before me (such as in the constraint’s section of the Council’s delegated report) which would suggest that the appeal site does not benefit from permitted development rights which would ultimately enable a hip to gable loft conversion with a rear dormer which would result in broadly the same implications, and impacts, as I have highlighted in the context of this appeal proposal. I would, however, make it clear that this appeal is not a determination as to the proposal being, or not being, permitted development.

My assessment is based upon the fact that in basic terms something with broadly similar implications could likely be constructed beyond the control of the Council which is sufficient to be a material consideration within this appeal. In the event this appeal failed, I find that it is entirely plausible, and a realistic prospect, that the appellant would seek to pursue the alterations via/within the scope of permitted development and this is a factor which I give significant weight in the consideration of this appeal. On this basis, I find this is sufficient to mean that the appeal should be allowed.

The proposal also includes a new window to the first-floor side elevation. Based upon the proposed first floor layout the window would serve a WC i.e. not a habitable room and it has been labelled, on the plans provided, as being obscured. Given that the window is to be in a side elevation it is reasonable, combined with the intended use, to apply a further condition requiring the glazing to be obscured to mitigate any overlooking (including perceived overlooking) as a result of a new window to the first-floor side elevation. The Council’s delegated report raises no reason for refusal based upon the proposed skylights or the first-floor side window and, based upon the above and subject to conditions, I have no reason to conclude differently on these matters.

I note third party comments which have been received during the application process. I have dealt with matters relating to general design and character in the context of the main issue above. The Council raise no refusal reason based upon neighbouring residential amenity with regard to loss of privacy, overlooking or overbearing and dominant appearance. Based upon the evidence before me, and my site visit, I find no reason to conclude differently and whilst I note the rear dormer will introduce further windows in the rear elevation, I do not find their presence would result in sufficient reason for refusal. Natural views, from the windows in question, would generally be down the garden where a degree of intervisibility between gardens and dwellings is to be accepted within a residential area of this nature and development pattern.

Comments have also been made regarding building works taking place, however, given the scale of the proposal, whilst I acknowledge there will be some impact to neighbouring properties during the construction phase, this is insufficient to warrant refusal. I have, however, applied a condition restricting the timings for building works and operations to ensure that this is kept to an appropriate time window each day to appropriately mitigate and control disruption during the construction phase.

With regard to parking, and I am mindful that the proposal would increase the number of bedrooms as demonstrated by the proposed loft layout. The proposal is likely to result in further parking associated with the property, however, at the time of my site visit, which I appreciate is a snapshot in time, I did not find any particular issue with regard to on-street parking or the pavements being blocked. Again, I would raise that in the event this appeal failed it is a material consideration that, within the confines of permitted development, the appellant would be able to do a hip to gable loft conversion and a dormer with broadly similar implications. As a result of this fallback position, therefore, a refusal reason based upon displacement of parking on street cannot be substantiated in this case.

Fear of a precedent is an insufficient reason for refusal as each case should be considered on its own merits, at the appropriate point of assessment, whether that be via a certificate of lawfulness or planning application as appropriate to sites elsewhere and in the future.

A time condition is attached to comply with Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. A condition requiring the development to be in accordance with the approved plans is required to control and define the development which is granted consent. A materials condition is required to ensure an appropriate finish in accordance with the details stated, on the application form, and in order to match those used the existing building where applicable to ensure a high quality and appropriate finish.

A condition requiring the new first floor side elevation window to be obscurely glazed is required to protect the amenity of adjacent residential dwellings as a result of a first-floor side window and condition, controlling working hours and days is required in order to control and appropriately mitigate the impact of construction works on neighbouring properties during the construction period as a result of concern raised within the objections as outlined.

For the reasons outlined above, and taking into account all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed subject to conditions.