Side extension and dormer at 40 Lowlands Avenue, Sutton Coldfield, Streetly

What was proposed

The application sought retrospective permission to retain a first-floor side extension, redesigned roof, rear dormer, loft conversion and front skylights.

“Application proposal: Retrospective full planning application for the retention of first floor side extension with roof re-design to accommodate rear dormer with loft conversion and skylights to front elevation.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The house is in a mainly residential area with detached and semi-detached homes, bungalows, and several similar extensions visible nearby.

“A site visit was carried out on 16th July 2025 prior to works commencing, again by the enforcement team 4 th December 2025 and by Case officer 18 th February 2026.”

“Lowlands Avenue is situated primarily residential area with a mix of detached and semi - detached houses and bungalows. The site is not within or adjacent to a conservation area. There are no listed buildings or locally listed buildings within the vicinity of the site. There are no protected trees on site TPO.”

Officer report

Earlier applications and enforcement

Earlier applications included a refused larger rear extension, a refused side and rear extension, a withdrawn application, and an open dormer enforcement case.

“Planning applications • 25/1280 - Full planning application for a single storey rear extension - Withdrawn Full Valid Application - 2025-12-19.”

“26/0009 - Full planning application for a proposed first floor side extension and rear dormer to accommodate loft conversion with skylights to front elevation - Withdrawn Full Valid Application - 2026-02-13.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval subject to conditions, considering the design acceptable, neighbour impacts limited, parking sufficient and the previous refusal overcome.

“Design, layout, and character The proposal would not contribute to terracing and whilst the proposed dormer is not subservient to the existing dwelling it does reflect the design of other similar extensions in this part of the street scene and in this instance, it is considered that lack of subservience alone would not cause sufficient harm to warrant a refusal.”

“Whilst concerns were raised that similar applications could be used as justification, each application is assessed on its own merit and will be assessed against locals and national policies. However, any similar development would be considered to assess the context of the locality. Concerns were raised that the current application would not overcome the previous refusal reason and would have a short fall of the recommended 13m separation distance.”

Officer report

Consultation and objections

The Highway Authority had no objection, while 19 objections raised concerns including overdevelopment, enclosure, separation distance, parking, privacy, light and outlook.

“Objections 19 comments received (many from the same person/household) objecting to proposal for the following reasons: • Works being completed and retrospectively making an application. • Building previously refused proposal. • Previous refusal reason applicable to current proposal. • May increase parking demand. • Garden and home impacted. • Oppressive sense of enclosure. • Shortfall of 13m separation distance. • Blank brick wall along boundary.”

“The following matters raised as part of the objections are not a material planning considerations: • Problem selling in future / devalues property. • Looks unsafe. • Views.”

Officer report

Who spoke

Two speakers supported the proposal and two opposed it, presenting views about design, parking, amenity, separation distances, privacy and precedent.

What members debated

Members debated overdevelopment, the 13-metre separation distance, privacy, residential amenity, loss of light and the development’s incongruous appearance.

“There followed a period of questions to officers. The Senior Planning Officer advised that a previous application had been refused due to the scale and impact, but the current proposal had been reduced. He added that the hipped gable and dormer could have been completed under permitted development rights, however, as it was connected to the side extension, that was the reason for the application.”

“The Committee moved to debate and Members expressed concerns regarding overdevelopment, failure to meet the 13-metre separation distance, harm to privacy and amenity, and the incongruous appearance of the development.”

Minutes

The vote and decision

The committee voted nine in favour, none against and one abstention, then refused permission contrary to the officers’ recommendation.

“Resolved (9 in favour, 0 against, 1 abstention)”

“That Planning Committee refuse permission for application 26/0106 contrary to the Officers’ recommendation on the grounds that the development; Represented an incongruous feature in the street scene; Resulted in harm to the privacy, gardens, and habitable rooms of neighbouring properties in Blackwood Drive; Failed to achieve the recommended 13-metre separation distance; and 4. Resulted in unacceptable loss of light and residential amenity.”

Minutes