Rear extensions at 7 Limes Avenue, Rowley Regis

What was proposed

The application sought to retain two and single storey rear extensions providing larger ground-floor accommodation and additional first-floor bedrooms.

“Application Details 6.1 The proposal is for the retention of two and single storey rear extensions which accommodate an enlarged kitchen and dining area at ground floor and increase the number of bedrooms at first floor from three to four with a study room.”

“The applicant had previously obtained planning permission for ground and first floor extensions across two separate applications but proceeded to implement both consents at the same time. The single storey extension of 6 metres in projection was deemed permitted development under PD/24/02799 and was amalgamated with two storey extensions approved under planning application DC/24/70030. This action thereby made both permissions unauthorised.”

Officer report

The site

The property is a mid-terraced house in a predominantly residential part of Limes Avenue.

“The Application Site 5.1 The application property is a mid-terraced dwellinghouse on the south- western side of Limes Avenue, Rowley Regis. The character of the surrounding area is predominantly residential in nature. Planning History A permitted development application was submitted in 2024 for a single storey rear extension measuring: 6.00m L x 4.00m H (2.70m to eaves).”

Officer report

Earlier permissions and works

Separate permissions had been granted for the rear extensions, but they were built together and became unauthorised; other unauthorised works remained subject to enforcement.

“L x 4.00m H (2.70m to eaves) 13 November 2024 DC/24/70030 Proposed two storey rear extension. Granted approval subject to external materials condition. January 2025 ENF/25/12674 Unauthorised works – two and single storey rear extensions, single storey front extension and outbuilding. Pending consideration DC/25/70819 Retention of single storey front extension. Refused permission.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the design, scale and neighbour impact were considered acceptable, with conditions for materials and parking.

“Reasons for the recommendation and conditions The proposed development would be acceptable as it accords with design policy, has no significant impact on the amenity of the occupiers of the neighbouring properties and the design and scale are appropriate to the existing property and the surrounding area.”

Officer report

What people said

Three objections raised concerns including loss of light and outlook, overlooking, excessive size, appearance, garden space, possible HMO use and drainage.

“Publicity The application has been publicised by four neighbour notification letters. Three objections have been received, and the content can be summarised below: i) Loss of light; ii) Loss of outlook; iii) Overlooking; iv) Not built in accordance with approved plans/oversized; iv) External materials not matching the existing; v) Loss of garden amenity space; vi) Out of character for the surrounding area; vii) Potential use as a HMO; and viii) Drains.”

“Consultee Responses 8.1 Highways No objection. It is noted that at least two car parking spaces were previously available to the front of the property (Fig 2) and should be made available again following removal of the unauthorised single storey extension. This is considered adequate for a four-bedroom dwelling with reference to design guidance.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicant was absent, while an objector said the extension was overbearing and out of character and raised concerns about its height, parking and other works.

What members debated

Members considered parking for the additional bedrooms and concluded that the combined extensions were overbearing, out of character and unacceptable cumulatively.

“Following the site visit, members noted that there was insufficient parking available to accommodate the additional bedrooms due to an existing front extension at the property. The Development Planning Manager informed members that the front extension had already been considered and that a notice had been served to the applicant to demolish the structure following an unsuccessful appeal.”

“Members were in agreement that the proposals were overbearing and out of character with the surrounding area and that, when the cumulative impact was considered, the application was unacceptable.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee refused the application because the extensions were overbearing and out of character with the surrounding area.

“Resolved that Planning Application DC/25/70818 – 7 Limes Avenue, Rowley Regis B65 8AZ (Retention of two and single storey rear extensions) is refused on the grounds of :-”

“I) overbearing in nature; II) out of character with the area.”

Minutes