63 James Dawson Drive, Millisons Wood, Coventry, West Midlands, CV5 9QJ

63 James Dawson Drive, Millisons Wood, Coventry, West Midlands, CV5 9QJ — Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision Site visit made on 20 February 2025 by John Felgate BA (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 26th February 2025 Appeal Ref: APP/Q4625/W/24/3354341 63 James Dawson Drive, Millisons Wood, West Midlands CV5 9QJ • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a grant of planning permission subject to conditions. • The appeal is made by Mr Matthew Holmes against the decision of Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council. • The application Ref PL/2024/01707/MINFHO was approved on 23 October 2024 and planning permission was granted subject to conditions. • The development permitted is: “Internal alterations to form additional bedroom at first floor, to include the addition of a side facing window”. • The condition in dispute is Condition No 4 which states: “The window to be installed in bedroom 5 at first floor in the side elevation of the dwelling which faces number 65 James Dawson Drive shall be obscurely glazed, and non-opening unless the parts of the window that can be opened are more than 1.7 metres above the floor of the room in which the window is installed.

63 James Dawson Drive, Millisons Wood, Coventry, West Midlands, CV5 9QJ — Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision The windows shall thereafter be permanently retained in that condition.” • The reason given for the condition is: “To safeguard the amenities of neighbours in accordance with Policy P14 of the Solihull Local Plan 2013”. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed, and the planning permission Ref PL/2024/01707/MINFHO, for the development described above at 63 James Dawson Drive, West Midlands CV5 9QJ, granted on 23 October 2024 by Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council, is varied by deleting Condition 4. Background and preliminary matters 2. The development comprises a scheme of primarily internal alterations to No 63 James Dawson Drive, to divide one existing bedroom into two, plus the creation of a new window in the side elevation. The disputed condition requires that the new window be obscurely glazed, and that it be non-opening below eye level. 3. By the time of my visit, the scheme had been largely completed. As far as I am aware, the works carried out appear to accord with the approved plans, except that the new window is currently glazed with clear glass. Reasons for decision 4.

63 James Dawson Drive, Millisons Wood, Coventry, West Midlands, CV5 9QJ — Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision The new window in question is at first floor level and faces the adjoining property, No 65 James Dawson Drive, at a distance of just under one metre from the boundary. Policy P14 of the Local Plan1 requires all developments to respect the amenity of neighbouring occupiers, and the Council’s design guidance2 discourages side-facing windows, for reasons of protecting neighbours’ privacy, 1 The Solihull Local Plan, adopted December 2013 2 House Extensions Guidelines – Supplementary Planning Document, dated February 2010 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

63 James Dawson Drive, Millisons Wood, Coventry, West Midlands, CV5 9QJ — Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision The new window in question is at first floor level and faces the adjoining property, No 65 James Dawson Drive, at a distance of just under one metre from the boundary. Policy P14 of the Local Plan1 requires all developments to respect the amenity of neighbouring occupiers, and the Council’s design guidance2 discourages side-facing windows, for reasons of protecting neighbours’ privacy, 1 The Solihull Local Plan, adopted December 2013 2 House Extensions Guidelines – Supplementary Planning Document, dated February 2010 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

63 James Dawson Drive, Millisons Wood, Coventry, West Midlands, CV5 9QJ — Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/Q4625/W/24/3354341 5. In the present case however, I saw on my visit that the main view from the new window is directed towards the gable end of No 65’s projecting garage. This section of wall is windowless. Oblique views towards the glazed conservatory, and a hallway, are largely obscured by the existing garage. The only window in No 65 which is potentially overlooked from the new window is one which serves the front porch, which is not a habitable room. Although the conservatory roof is obliquely visible, the ribbed plastic material from which this is made does not appear to be transparent. From my observations therefore, in no case does the new window at the appeal property afford window-to-window views affecting privacy within the adjoining property. 6. Externally, the new window does provide some potential for views over No 65’s rear garden. However, such views are very oblique, and are available only from one corner of the new bedroom 5. Whereas, as I saw during my visit, the whole of the garden in question is already clearly visible, from the appeal property’s existing rear-facing windows, in bedrooms Nos 1 and 4.

63 James Dawson Drive, Millisons Wood, Coventry, West Midlands, CV5 9QJ — Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council — Appeal Decision Moreover, in the case of bedroom 4 in particular, this existing view is both closer and more direct, and is visible from a larger part of that room, compared to the view from the new window. In these circumstances, no loss of privacy would be suffered by the neighbouring occupiers in the use of their rear garden. 7. Consequently, having regard to all these matters, I am satisfied that the retention of the implemented development in its present form, including the existing clear glazing in the new window, would have no significant adverse effects on the privacy of the occupants of No 65 James Dawson Drive, or indeed any other property. In this regard, despite the minor departure from the relevant design guidance, I find no conflict with the aims of Policy P14. 8. I therefore conclude that Condition 4 of the planning permission granted by the Council is unnecessary. As such, the condition fails to meet the tests for planning conditions in paragraph 57 of the National Planning Policy Framework. It follows that the condition should be deleted. For these reasons, the appeal is allowed.

63 James Dawson Drive, Millisons Wood, Coventry, West Midlands, CV5 9QJ — Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council — J Felgate INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2