Retrospective planning application for first floor side extension and loft conversion with dormer

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 15 September 2026 by N Bromley BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 28 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6012391 40 Lowlands Avenue, Streetly, Sutton Coldfield B74 3QN  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission.  The appeal is made by Mr. Mani Johal against the decision of Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council.  The application Ref is 26/0106.  The development proposed is described as “Retrospective planning application for first floor side extension and loft conversion with dormer”. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. The address of the appeal site given on the original planning application form was incomplete. Therefore, the address in the banner heading above is taken from the appeal form as it is more comprehensive. 3. I have assessed the appeal scheme based on the plans before me, but I observed at the time of the site visit that the external works of the development were largely complete. I have dealt with the appeal on that basis. 4. During the appeal process a new National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) was published on 17 August 2026. As the policy content of the Framework, insofar as it relates to this case, has not significantly changed, I have not sought submissions on the new Framework, and I am satisfied that no party’s interests have been prejudiced by taking this approach. I have had regard to the Framework in reaching my decision. Main Issues 5. The main issues are the effect of the development on:  the character and appearance of the area; and  the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers of 30 and 32 Blackwood Drive, with regard to outlook and privacy. Reasons Character and appearance 6. The appeal site comprises a two-storey, semi-detached house, at the end of a row of residential properties that front Lowlands Avenue, close to the junction with Blackwood Drive. The property has a frontage parking area, and a sizeable rear garden. Appeal Decision 6012391 2 7. The street scene is characterised by traditional two storey semi-detached houses within a quiet, suburban residential setting. While many of the houses along the road retain their original appearance, a number have been extended. Indeed, there are numerous examples of first floor side extensions and roof additions within the street scene. In particular, reference has been made to the existing roof alterations to 41, 43 and 45 Lowlands Avenue. 8. When viewed from the front of the host property the appeal scheme has a similar appearance to the extension and roof alteration at 41 Lowlands Avenue (No 41), which has previously had planning permission1 granted. However, the roof alteration to No 41 is not prominent due to its size and position towards the rear of the property. The limited spacing between dwellings also restricts views of that development from the road. This is also the case for other roof alterations in this part of the street scene. 9. In contrast, the appeal scheme, comprising a hip to gable enlargement and rear dormer window, is a large, bulky extension to the roof. It is prominent due to the juxtaposition of the host property with the adjacent house, 32 Blackwood Drive (No 32), which is set back from Lowlands Avenue by its side garden, allowing views of the large roof addition. In particular, the hip to gable enlargement is tall and with its connection to the first-floor extension it has a notable mass. Combined with the dark grey tile hanging, the appeal scheme has a dominant, abrupt appearance that is incongruous within the street. 10. My attention has been drawn to a rear dormer window at 5 Lowlands Avenue (No 5) which is highly visible from that part of the road. Even so, it has a traditional design that sits comfortably within the rear roof slope of that house. As such, it is not comparable to the appeal scheme. Likewise, a small dormer window in the side roof slope of No 32 is a proportionate addition to that property and despite it being visible it is not dominant. Given this, these examples do not add weight in favour of the development, and I have determined the case before me on its own merits. 11. For the reasons outlined above, I conclude that the development unacceptably harms the character and appearance of the area. Therefore, it conflicts with Policies GP2 and ENV32 of the Walsall Unitary Development Plan 2005 (the WUDP), and Policies CSP4, ENV2 and ENV3 of the Black Country Core Strategy 2011 (the BCCS), which together and amongst other things, seek to resist poorly designed developments, and expect all development to make a positive contribution to the quality of the environment. Living conditions 12. Windows in the rear elevations of 30 Blackwood Drive (No 30) and No 32 have an outlook towards the side boundary of the appeal site and the side wall of the first- floor side extension and the hip to gable enlargement, with dormer window. 13. The first-floor side extension and the roof enlargement increase the amount of built development at the end of the gardens of No 30 and No 32. However, the hipped roof of the first-floor extension slopes away from the side boundary. In addition, the hip to gable enlargement, with dormer window, is set away from the boundary. In combination with the separation distance and juxtaposition of the appeal scheme 1 Council reference: 23/0768 Appeal Decision 6012391 3 with the rear ground floor windows of No 30 and No 32, the extension and roof alterations are not overbearing. Therefore, the appeal scheme does not unacceptably harm the outlook from the rear ground floor windows of No 30 and No 32. 14. Landing and bathroom windows in the side and rear elevations of the extension and dormer window could be controlled by a suitably worded planning condition to ensure that the existing obscure glazing in those windows is retained. How those windows open could also be restricted. Furthermore, a rear bedroom window in the dormer window is a considerable distance away from the rear elevations of neighbouring properties along Blackwood Drive and Frankburn Road. Therefore, the appeal scheme would not result in a significant loss of privacy to the occupiers of neighbouring houses. 15. For the above reasons, I conclude that the development would not cause unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers of 30 and 32 Blackwood Drive, with regard to outlook and privacy. As such, it would not conflict with Policies GP2 and ENV32 of the WUDP, and Policies CSP4, ENV2 and ENV3 of the BCCS. These together, and amongst other things, seek good place making and developments that do not result in overlooking and loss of privacy. Other Matters 16. Reference has been made to a possible fallback position should the appeal be dismissed. Notably, the construction of a hip to gable extension to the existing dwelling along with a rear box dormer, which I am told could be constructed under the provisions of Schedule 2, Part 1, Class B of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015. The appellant suggests that they would unquestionably look to adjust the works carried out on site to bring them in line with Permitted Development requirements. 17. For significant weight to be afforded to a fallback position it would need to be equally or more harmful than the appeal scheme. Plans have not been submitted to show the extent of a development that could be carried out as a fallback. Particularly when compared to the appeal scheme. Even so, the appellant suggests that the alterations to the roof that could be carried out as a fallback would not be as great as the appeal scheme. In these circumstances, and on the evidence before me, I am not persuaded that the fallback position would be as harmful as the appeal scheme, and I afford the matter limited weight. 18. The proposal would provide additional living accommodation for the occupiers, but any associated benefits would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects of the development on the character and appearance of the area. Conclusion 19. The development conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Accordingly, for the reasons given, the appeal is dismissed. N Bromley INSPECTOR