Solihull
Nub News

Historic Solihull home wins appeal over plastic windows despite heritage concerns

Local News by Sam Greenway - Local Democracy Reporter 3rd Nov 2026  
The latest saga was over windows at an extended Edwardian period house in Ashleigh Road, Solihull (Image via LDRS)
The latest saga was over windows at an extended Edwardian period house in Ashleigh Road, Solihull (Image via LDRS)

The planning inspectorate has overruled another Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (SMBC) decision in the latest lost appeal for the authority.

As the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS) has been reporting the authority has seen a number of lost appeals this year.

The latest saga was over windows at an extended Edwardian period house in Ashleigh Road, Solihull.

Abbeyfield House saw extensions in the 1980s and links to the period house in 2011.

In 1993 an article 4 direction was added to the road – on the junction with the Warwick Road – to control window replacement.

In January Mr Siddiqui submitted a retrospective planning application to the authority to replace eight windows.

A planning statement argued it "regularised" four windows facing Warwick Road and four windows facing to the garden at the back.

A planning statement included in the application said: "The windows prior to replacement were a mix of wooden frames with uPVC casements.

Download our Nub News App!

- It’s FREE and available now
- Breaking news notifications
- Your Town in Your Pocket

"It is a reasonable argument the replacement bay windows in the existing openings represent a very similar appearance to the existing and therefore do not constitute development.

"However, in the interest of building harmonious neighbourly relationships it was determined an application should be made for retrospective planning consent.

"Whilst the majority of properties to the road retain their original windows, there have been some that have replaced with uPVC.

"The replacement windows, if considered as development, do not cause any harm to the conservation area and planning permission should be granted."

In March officer Mark Andrews, the council's head of planning, design and engagement service, issued a decision notice refusing the application.

The officer wrote: "The replacement of the original timber framed windows with UPVC units has resulted in an incongruous and unsympathetic alteration that fails to preserve the character of the host building.

"The protection of traditional architectural features is of heightened importance.

"Allowing the development would set an undesirable precedent that would make it difficult for the council to resist similar harmful alterations, cumulatively eroding the area's established character and distinctiveness."

The applicant appealed to the government's planning inspectorate with Miranda Garrard being appointed inspector.

And on October 15 the inspector issued a decision notice overturning the council's decision and granting planning permission.

Explaining the decision the inspector wrote: "I have considered the council's concern regarding precedent.

"However, my conclusions are based on the particular characteristics of No. 1A and its relationship to the conservation area.

"I attach little weight to the suggestion that allowing this appeal would justify similar alterations elsewhere, as each proposal must be determined on its own merits.

"I find the replacement windows do not materially affect the way the conservation area appears, nor do they diminish the qualities that define its distinctive character. Accordingly, they have no effect on its significance.

"For these reasons, I conclude that the development preserves the character and appearance of the conservation area."

In a separate decision the inspector decided not to award costs to the applicant.

Explaining that decision the inspector wrote: "The applicant contends that although both the planning and heritage officers recommended approval, the planning committee was influenced by local objections rather than planning policy.

"I am not satisfied unreasonable procedural behaviour causing unnecessary or wasted expense has been demonstrated.

"The planning committee was not obliged to accept the officers' recommendations and was entitled to exercise its own planning judgement."

The full decision can be viewed on the council's website by searching for application PL/2026/00015/PPFL at https://publicaccess.solihull.gov.uk/online-applications.

The LDRS has reported on other lost appeals this year which included an extension to a property in Shirley, another home extension in Knowle, a new wall and gate at a property in Lovelace Avenue and a loft conversion at a Castle Bromwich property.

Download our Nub News App: - It’s FREE and available now
- Breaking news notifications
- Your Town in Your Pocket

Share:

Comments (0)

Post comment

No comments yet!


Downdload our Nub News App:
- It’s FREE and available now
- Breaking news notifications
- Your Town in Your Pocket