Single-storey side extension at 33 Collins Street, Walsall

What was proposed

The application sought permission to resubmit plans for a single-storey side extension to the property.

“26/0358 Site location: 33, COLLINS STREET, WALSALL, WS1 4BD Application proposal: Resubmission of planning application 25/1475 for a full planning application for a single storey side extension.”

Officer report

The site

The semi-detached property stands on a corner, with front and rear amenity areas, a side driveway and a prominent building line nearby.

“Site and surroundings A site visit was carried out on 06-May-2026. The site is located on the corner of Collins Street and Alexandra Road, Walsall. The site is a semi-detached property with rear and front amenity areas, and a driveway to the side of the property. The site sits within an area of traditional red brick properties with a prominent front gable and a strict building line for nearby properties.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

An earlier similar application was refused and its appeal was dismissed because of the extension’s design, position and effect on the street scene.

“Planning history Planning applications • 25/1475 - Full planning application for a single storey side extension – Refuse Permission – 16/02/2026 o 1: The side extension would be positioned in front of the building line of adjacent houses, due to its prominent exposed position within the street, this would detract from the character of the area and it is considered that this proposal would cause significant harm to the existing open character along this area of Collins…”

“The proposal is therefore contrary to saved policy GP2 (Environmental Protection) of the Walsall Unitary Development Plan, policies CSP4 (Place-making) and ENV3 (Design Quality) of the Black Country Core Strategy, and Appendix D of the Designing Walsall Supplementary Planning Document (Numerical Guidelines for Residential Development).”

Officer report

The officers’ recommendation

Officers recommended refusal because the extension would remain a prominent, incongruous feature forward of the building line and harm the area’s character.

“The proposed side extension has been reduced from the previous application by 0.5 metres, following amendments submitted by the applicant. However, the proposed side extension still exceeds the existing building line of Collins Street by 2.3 metres when measured perpendicular to the existing building line and the widest part of the proposed extension.”

“Conclusion and reasons for decision This application has failed to demonstrate that the proposed side extension will not cause harm to the existing street scene character and visual amenity. The proposal would create an incongruous and prominent feature that sits forward of the existing building line with Collins Street and would cause detrimental harm to the character of the area.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

No consultee comments were required, and two comments supported the proposal without giving reasons.

“Consultee comments (planning officer’s summary) No consultee comments required.”

“Neighbour and interested parties’ comments (planning officer’s summary) Support Two comments received in support of proposal with no reasons given.”

Officer report

What the speaker said

The agent said the extension would provide accessible ground-floor accommodation so the applicant’s daughter could live safely at home.

The committee’s debate

Officers highlighted the previous appeal, the corner position, the flat roof and the projection beyond the building line, while a member considered the benefit greater than the harm.

“There followed a period of questions to officers. the Senior Planning Officer explained that every application was assessed on its own merits which included siting within its plot and relationship to neighbouring buildings. The Team Leader, Development Management, advised that a previous application for a similar extension had been refused and subsequently dismissed at appeal.”

“The Interim Head of Planning and Building Control further advised that the property was in a prominent corner position, and that the proposed flat roof extension did not reflect the character of the host dwelling, which had a pitched roof, and extended beyond the building line.”

Minutes

The decision

Permission was granted contrary to the officers’ recommendation because the committee considered the benefit outweighed the harm, subject to final conditions.

“It was moved by Councillor Nawaz and seconded by Councillor Singh Sohal and upon being put to the vote it was;”

“That Planning Committee grant permission for application 26/0358 contrary to the Officers’ recommendation on the grounds that the benefit outweighed the harm and subject to: The amendment and finalising of conditions.”

Minutes