Eight replacement bay windows at Abbeyfield House, Solihull
Summary of planning committee decision
Decided by Solihull Planning Committee on 11 Mar 2026.
What was proposed
The application sought retrospective permission to retain eight replacement bay windows.
“Proposal: Retrospective consent for 8 No. replacement bay windows.”
“Planning permission is sought for the retention of 8 no replacement bay windows.”
Officer report
The officers’ recommendation
Officers recommended approval, considering the alterations visually acceptable, harmless to the conservation area and acceptable for neighbouring amenity.
“This report will demonstrate that the alterations are visually acceptable, will not be harmful to the character and appearance of Ahsleigh Road Conservation Area, and will not be unduly harmful to neighbouring amenity. Accordingly, given that all other material planning considerations are acceptable, the proposal is compliant with P14, P15 and P16 of the Solihull Local Plan.”
Officer report
The main planning issues
The assessment considered the windows’ effect on the building, conservation area and streetscene, alongside the living conditions of neighbours.
“The main issues in this application are the effects of the development:”
“Firstly, on the character and appearance of the host property, Conservation area and area generally; and • Secondly, on the living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring properties;”
Officer report
Consultation and objections
The Lead Local Flood Authority raised no objection, Heritage raised no objection subject to conditions, and 27 people objected.
“Lead Local Flood Authority - No objection SMBC Heritage – No objection subject to conditions…”
Officer report
The committee’s decision
The committee refused the application against the officer recommendation, finding that the UPVC windows caused heritage harm without sufficient public benefits.
“PL/2026/00015/PPFL - 1 - 1A ASHLEIGH ROAD Refused, against Officer recommendation, for the following reason:”
“(1) The replacement of the original timber framed windows with UPVC units at No. 1A Ashleigh Road has resulted in an incongruous and unsympathetic alteration that fails to preserve the character of the host building. The use of UPVC, including its modern material finish, bulkier character and appearance of the Ashleigh Road Conservation Area, in which the site is located.”
Minutes
The members' reasons
The resolution gives these reasons:
Minutes
- The replacement of the original timber framed windows with UPVC units at No. 1A Ashleigh Road has resulted in an incongruous and unsympathetic alteration that fails to preserve the character of the host building. The use of UPVC, including its modern material finish, bulkier character and appearance of the Ashleigh Road Conservation Area, in which the site is located. Ashleigh Road is subject to a
- and Policy P16 of the Solihull Local Plan, and the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (paragraphs 199-202). Mr Mark Embley and Councillor Wazma Qais (Silhill Ward) spoke against the application.
Source: the council's minutes, quoted word for word.
Sources
- Solihull Planning Committee minutes, 11 March 2026
- Agenda and papers (council website)
Source: Plota analysis of Solihull's committee minutes and officer report. Quotations are the council's own words; headings and summaries are Plota's.
Committee decisions and nationwide planning applications, in one API
The Plota API returns planning applications from every council we cover, each with its decision, whether a committee or officers decided it, and the committee date. Build it into your own tools.
See the API →At the meeting
- Committee
- Solihull Planning Committee
- Council
- Solihull
- Date
- Wednesday 11 March 2026
- Recommendation
- Officers recommended approval
- Committee decided
- Refused, against officer advice
- Minutes
- The council's minutes
- Meeting
- Agenda and papers (council website)
- Application
- View application →
- All decisions
- Solihull committee decisions →
This committee's year
37 decisions in the 12 months to this meeting, 8 against officer advice.
Source: Plota analysis of the committee's minutes.