Planning Committee Rejects Height Increase in Contentious Extension
Solihull Council's planning committee has refused a controversial application to increase the height of a property extension in Shirley, citing disputed measurements and concerns from neighbours. The decision marks the latest development in a long-running saga that began back in October 2021 when applicant Mariam Kiani first sought permission for a two-storey front, side, and rear extension at their Solihull Road home.
Disputed Measurements Spark Neighbour Objections
In August 2025, the applicant resubmitted plans proposing to increase the extension's height from 8m to 8.2m and extend a front central gable feature to project forward by an additional 0.7m. This prompted objections from eight neighbours and councillors, including council leader Karen Grinsell.
During the November 12 planning committee meeting at the Civic Suite, planning officer Kim Allen presented the case. She acknowledged resident concerns that the higher extension would cause loss of light to next door neighbours' windows, but stated the applicant had demonstrated this wouldn't occur.
However, objector Dr Beardmore challenged this assessment, having conducted his own measurements. He described the proposed development as a 'mini mansion' and claimed the official measurements were incorrect. 'This height of extension would block out the light of the window by at least 50 per cent,' he told the committee.
Committee Votes Against Officer Recommendation
Councillor Mark Parker echoed these concerns, stating: 'The height is the real concern. The latest amendment – after a series of comedic errors – is still out of keeping with the streetscene.'
Oscar Vila Pouca, from planning agents Made Architecture, defended the application, explaining it aimed to 'rectify the anomaly discrepancy in dimensions found between the approved plans and elevations.'
The committee remained unconvinced. Councillor Heather Delaney expressed concern about 'two different perspectives on how high this building is going to be,' while Councillor Dave Pinwell noted the committee had been presented with 'conflicting information.'
Despite the officer's recommendation for approval, when put to a vote, six councillors voted against the application, with none in favour and three abstentions, resulting in the proposal's rejection.
