A government inspector has once again overruled Solihull Council on a planning decision, labeling the authority's behavior as 'unreasonable.' This latest verdict means taxpayers will foot another bill following a dispute over a home extension in Station Road, Knowle.
Background of the Case
Applicants Mr. and Mrs. Woodbridge initially sought permission from Solihull Council in October last year for a first-floor side extension, a single-storey rear infill extension, and a loft dormer to the rear for an en-suite. The application included detailed drawings of the proposed development.
However, in December, council planning officers refused the plan using delegated powers. Mark Andrews, the council’s head of planning, design and engagement service, stated in the decision notice: 'The reason to refuse permission is the proposed development, by reason of its bulk scale and design, would result in an addition which wouldn’t respect the character of the local amenity.'
Appeal and Inspector's Ruling
The applicants appealed to the government’s planning inspectorate. Earlier this month, inspector Andrew Boughton overturned the decision after a site visit. In his appeal decision, he wrote: 'I have found the quality of the streetscape in the area would not be adversely affected such that the proposal would not conflict with the identified planning policies nor, therefore, with the development plan taken as a whole. Other matters raised do not alter that conclusion – consequently my reasoning directs that having taken all matters raised into account the appeal should succeed.'
Costs Awarded to Applicants
In a separate decision, the inspector also awarded costs to the applicants. He criticized the council's behavior, stating: 'The applicant for costs points to the behaviour of the council in failing to clearly identify what aspects of the proposal were unacceptable or make a site-specific objective assessment. The decision notice, by a seeming omission of a key noun or nouns after ‘additional’ and by the ill-defined term ‘character of the local amenity’ falls well short of clarity and precision required. I therefore find that unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense has been demonstrated and a full award of costs is justified.'
Previous Similar Case
As reported by the Local Democracy Reporting Service, costs were also awarded to another Solihull resident after a successful appeal regarding an extension in Shirley. In that case, the inspector similarly found unreasonable behavior by the council.
To read the full judgment on the Station Road property, search for application PL/2025/01965/MINFHO at https://publicaccess.solihull.gov.uk/online-applications.
