Eight replacement Solihull windows have won planning permission on appeal in the Ashleigh Road Conservation Area, but the applicant’s claim for full costs has been refused. Inspector MG Garrard issued both decisions on 15th October 2026 for Abbeyfield House on Ashleigh Road.
The white uPVC bay windows had already been installed on a later addition to a building. The Inspector found that their particular setting meant they preserved the conservation area’s character and appearance, despite differing from the timber detailing of nearby historic houses.
I would keep the two outcomes separate. The Solihull windows were acceptable on their planning merits, but that did not make the council’s earlier refusal unreasonable. The costs decision is a useful reminder that councillors can disagree with professional officers without automatically becoming liable for an applicant’s appeal expenses.
Why the Solihull windows were allowed
The planning decision, appeal 6010154, concerns application PL/2026/00015/PPFL. The conservation area includes substantial early twentieth-century houses with traditional details such as painted timber windows, mullions, transoms and leaded upper lights.
The host addition was different. Its shallow-pitched roof, modern brickwork and window arrangement identified it as a later structure. The Inspector found that this part of the building did not materially contribute to the conservation area’s significance.
That context was central to the Solihull windows decision. The replacement units occupied existing openings. Although their materials and details differed from the earlier windows, they were experienced as part of a building addition that already contrasted with the historic houses.
Four windows faced the rear garden and were visible from limited viewpoints. The other four faced Warwick Road and remained visible from across the road despite partial screening by vegetation. The Inspector did not rely on a finding that all the windows were hidden.
Instead, he found they were visually separate from the historic façades on Ashleigh Road. They did not materially increase the distinction between the later addition and the original building, and did not diminish the qualities defining the area’s character.
No general rule approving uPVC in conservation areas
Some interested parties argued that replacement windows had to replicate the existing units and that uPVC was inherently unacceptable. The Inspector explained that the acceptability of replacement windows is a matter of planning judgement based on their effects in the circumstances of each case.
The Solihull windows appeal does not establish that timber can always be replaced by uPVC in a conservation area. The host building’s contribution, the design of the windows and their relationship to historic façades were all important to this result.
The council’s concern about precedent carried little weight because each proposal must be determined on its own merits. That is particularly relevant where an alteration to a later addition might have different effects from the same alteration to an important historic frontage.
The appellant also argued that the Article 4 Direction did not apply because of the property’s lawful use. The Inspector expressly left that question outside the appeal. He determined whether planning permission should be granted, rather than deciding whether an application had been necessary.
Work before permission did not prove intention
The decision records that the Solihull windows were installed before the planning application. That retrospective sequence was raised against the proposal, but the Inspector did not find substantive evidence that unauthorised development had been intentional.
The distinction matters because the national policy considered in the decision gives substantial weight to intentional unauthorised development where that intention is established on the evidence. The fact that works preceded an application was not, by itself, enough to establish it here.
There was also a minor discrepancy between the installed rear windows and the drawings over upper lights. The Inspector found that the location, number and overall form remained clear enough to identify the development, and that the difference did not materially affect the assessment.
No conditions were imposed. The works had already taken place, and the Inspector found neither a commencement condition nor a condition requiring compliance with plans necessary. This was an approval of the replacement windows considered, rather than an invitation to undertake different alterations.
Why the full costs claim failed
The separate costs decision records the applicant’s argument that both planning and heritage officers recommended approval, but the planning committee was influenced by objections rather than policy. The applicant also raised an alleged failure to offer an opportunity to speak at committee.
The Inspector found that the evidence did not establish the circumstances in which the applicant or agent would have been entitled to speak, or that a procedural failure had occurred. Nor was unnecessary or wasted appeal expense resulting from the alleged failure demonstrated.
On the Solihull windows merits, the council’s appeal statement largely repeated its refusal reason rather than substantially developing its case. Nevertheless, it identified the particular materials, details and conservation area effects to which it objected. The evidence did not show a decision based on immaterial considerations.
The Inspector emphasised that the committee was entitled to exercise “its own planning judgement”. A difference between that judgement, the officers’ recommendations and the appeal conclusion did not, by itself, establish unreasonable behaviour.
What this means for similar appeals
For an owner considering replacement windows, I would start by assessing the particular building and the details that contribute to its significance. A successful appeal about a later addition does not answer the same question for an original frontage elsewhere in the conservation area.
For a costs claim, identify the unreasonable conduct alleged and the unnecessary expense it caused. Winning the planning appeal is a separate question. Our Chacombe barn appeals report also distinguishes a successful heritage-related appeal from an unsuccessful costs application.
Here the applicant gained permission for the eight windows, while each party remained responsible for its own appeal expenses under the refused costs application. Both parts of the outcome matter when judging what the case offers as a practical example.
0 Comments