Appeal 6006310

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for development described as ‘retention of double storey side/rear, single storey rear, loft conversion with rear dormer windows. Single storey flat roof detached outbuilding’ at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/2025/01593/MINFHO subject to the following condition:

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos 001 and 002 rev D.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The description above is taken from the application form. Amended plans were submitted at the application stage to also include a single storey garage which I have therefore included above. At the time of my site visit, development had commenced but the scheme was not entirely complete. There also appeared to be some minor variations from the submitted plans including fenestration detailing. I will therefore refer to the proposals in the future tense.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal upon a) the character and appearance of the area and b) the living conditions of the occupiers of Number [address] (No.1) with particular regard to privacy and outlook.

The appeal site is a semi-detached property situated in a residential area. Most on [address] are also semi-detached and many have been subject to changes including side extensions and roof alterations. Dwellings are set back in line with one another with spacious frontages. On the rear elevations, there are a variety of alterations including rear extensions and some dormers that are visible from within the appeal site. Many also benefit from outbuildings in the rear gardens.

The proposal would introduce a side and rear extension that would be in line with the existing dwelling at the front. The side extension would have a subordinate appearance from the street scene with a slimmer width and lower height. The proposal also includes a hip to gable alteration. A number of properties on [address] have been subject to similar changes and therefore the proposals that would be visible on the frontage would reflect the character and appearance of the area. The proposed materials are matching brick and grey roof tiles. Although the roof would not match No.1 or other nearby dwellings, I remain to be convinced that the choice of materials would be so harmful that they would justify a recommendation to dismiss the appeal on that basis.

The proposal also includes the provision of a large dormer within the rear roof slope of the dwelling. The Council has suggested that if the dormer was erected as standalone development, it would comply with the permitted development regime. I have no reason to disagree. I afford this great weight as a legitimate fall-back position. The dormer would extend across the width of the rear roof and would be of a large size. That being said, the rear elevations of a number of the surrounding properties have evolved over time and although the dormer would be larger than the others, the alterations would not be materially different from other nearby development. [name] agree that the dormer would have a bulky appearance to the rear, it would not be dominant from the wider area. Combining this with its location among a varied array of rear developments, this aspect of the proposal would not amount to harm.

The proposed outbuilding would be positioned to the rear of the appeal property at the end of the garden. It would be single storey with a flat roof and would use materials to match the main dwelling. It would not be easily visible from the surrounding area. That being said, such outbuildings are typical residential developments and are not uncommon in the area. The proposals as a whole would therefore not cause harm to the character and appearance of the area and would, consequently, comply with Policy P15 of the Solihull Local Plan 2013 (LP) which is concerned with conserving local character amongst other things.

The appeal property is attached to No.1. Both have rear gardens that run parallel to one another although No.1 is a corner plot and benefits from a much larger garden. The dwellings are separated by close boarded fencing however the first floor of each is clearly visible from the other neighbouring garden.

The proposal would introduce windows in the rear elevation of the two-storey extension and the rear elevation of the dormer resulting in two additional windows, one of which would serve a bathroom which, at the time of my site visit appeared to be obscure glazed. There would be no windows in the side elevation of either aspect that would face towards No.1. There are already windows at first floor level, and both properties already experience a degree of overlooking in that the occupants of No.1 can see into the garden of the appeal site and vice versa. Given that the windows would immediately face to the rear, the proposal would not cause a further loss of privacy for the occupants of No.1.

The extension to the rear would only extend marginally further back than the rear wall of No.1. The two-storey part of the proposal would be positioned away from the boundary with the closest development being the flat roofed single storey aspect. The rear dormer, although visible, would extend no further back than the existing roof slope. Even though the alterations would be clearly noticeable from the rear garden and windows of No.1, they would not be an atypical type of development within a residential area. No.1 benefits from a particularly large rear garden and combining this with the reasons above, there would not be a loss of outlook for the occupants of No.1 as a result of the proposed extensions.

The outbuilding would be visible from the rear windows and garden of No.1 above the boundary fencing. Nevertheless, given its single storey nature and position to the rear corner of the site, combined with the large size of the garden of No.1, it would not cause harm to the outlook experienced by the occupants of the dwelling. The proposal would not therefore harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No.1 and would comply with the requirements of Policy P14 of the LP which is concerned with respecting the amenity of existing occupiers amongst other things.

The fact that development has commenced prior to planning permission being in place does not have a bearing on the outcome of a given scheme. The appeal before me is for householder alterations and not for any change of use in occupancy or business use and I have therefore considered the proposals as such. Given that many of the properties on [address] have been individually altered, an additional precedent for householder alterations would not be set as a result of the appeal.

The Council concluded that the living conditions of the occupants of other neighbouring properties is not a contentious matter in the appeal and I have no reason to disagree. There may have been some loss of privacy for the occupiers of No.[address] on the first and second floor of the appeal property however that would only be for a temporary period. Furthermore, any noise arising from construction vehicles, storage of materials or works would be a temporary effect and would not amount to harm for the purposes of the appeal.

The appeal site benefits from a driveway and most properties near to the appeal site also have off-road parking. There is ample on-street parking capacity around the site, and I therefore fail to see how the proposal would cause harm to highway safety even if further cars were to be at the property or parked on the road as a result of the proposal.

I have not been provided with any evidence to demonstrate where any protected trees are that would be affected by the proposal. The same can be said for any evidence that the proposal would result in flooding.

It is alleged that some development may not have been constructed in accordance with the appeal plans. At the time of my site visit, any minor variations did not cause harm to the character and appearance of the area nor the living conditions of the occupants of No.1. I have however considered the appeal on the basis of the plans I have referred to above.

Any concerns relating to building safety, damage to verges or health and safety during construction are dealt with under separate regimes and would therefore be outside the scope of this appeal. The same can be said for concerns about access to drainage, property value, access for maintenance, party wall agreements and boundary disputes which are private civil matters.

The development has already commenced. I have therefore only recommended an approved plans condition for certainty and enforcement purposes.

For the reasons given above, the appeal scheme would comply with the development plan and there is nothing compelling to suggest a decision other than in accordance. I therefore recommend that the appeal should be allowed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed. Planning permission is therefore granted, subject to the condition set out above.