A homeowner has been told to remove a substantial extension from his family property after planning officials rejected his appeal against its demolition.
Mani Singh constructed the sizeable addition at the rear of his £415,000 semi-detached house in Sutton Coldfield, West Midlands, without first obtaining planning consent.
The project features a loft conversion, skylights and a prominent grey dormer measuring around 3m high. Neighbours objected strongly, saying the structure cuts out natural light and damages the established appearance of the street.
Their opposition became so intense that residents hired a minibus to travel to a Walsall Council meeting in May, where they protested against what they called an “ugly eyesore”.
The council was alerted to the building work by neighbours. Mr Singh, a father of two, subsequently applied for retrospective planning permission, but his application was rejected in April.
Mr Singh, who moved into the three-bedroom property in 2024, challenged the decision and maintained that the extension qualified under permitted development rights.
However, the Planning Inspectorate has now dismissed his appeal, agreeing that the extension “unacceptably harms the appearance of the area”. The dormer will therefore have to be removed unless the work can be brought into compliance through an approved alternative scheme.
Mani Singh, from Sutton Coldfield in the West Midlands, has been ordered to remove a large extension from his three-bedroom £415,000 home following a planning ruling
Neighbours were so unhappy with the 3m-high grey structure, which they branded an “ugly eyesore”, that they hired a minibus to protest at a Walsall Council meeting
Mr Singh appealed against the original planning decision, arguing that the extension was covered by permitted development rights
Liz Deakin, 63, who has lived on the road for 35 years, described the ruling as a “victory” for local residents.
“We are very pleased that the inspector viewed the situation from our perspective,” she said.
“He must now either regularise the work or take it down, so much will depend on what Walsall Council decides to do next regarding enforcement.
“He can still put forward revised plans, and we would have the opportunity to object if we believed they were not suitable.
“If he does not submit anything, Walsall Council will start enforcement proceedings. I have no idea how long that might take because these matters can often take a considerable amount of time.”
ALSO READ: US Monitors Suspected Fatal Pneumonic Plague Case in Russia
Ms Deakin said the central concern was the extension’s design, which she described as intrusive because it overlooks nearby gardens and homes.
She said: “It looks like a directors’ box at a major football stadium. It is completely out of place in a quiet suburban neighbourhood like this.
“The inspector and the committee both described it as ‘incongruous’, and that is precisely what it is. The latest report is extremely critical.”
Neighbour Liz Deakin (right) called the planning decision a “victory” for people living nearby
Mr Singh sought retrospective planning permission after neighbours reported the building work to the council. Cath Tandy, 75, who lives behind the property, said the extension had made the area feel “a bit like being in a prison exercise yard”
‘It doesn’t fit in with the street scene and it’s clearly visible from the corner, so the whole development can be seen from the road.
‘I don’t know what he’s going to do to fix it, but from our point of view this is absolutely a step in the right direction.’
Fellow neighbour Cath Tandy, 75, who lives at the back of the house, previously said the extension has made it a ‘bit like being in a prison exercise yard.’
The grandmother-of-two said: ‘I used to have lots of sunlight coming into my garden in the evenings but the extension has blocked all that so it’s dark most of the time.’
Mr Singh’s plans were refused on the grounds of the breach of separation policy, incongruous development, loss of light and detriment to neighbouring amenities.
Inspector N. Bromley said while the dormer does ‘not cause unacceptable harm’ to the privacy of neighbours, it ‘unacceptably harms the character and appearance.’
Their decision states: ‘I conclude that the development unacceptably harms the character and appearance of the area.
‘The development conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it.
‘Accordingly, for the reasons given, the appeal is dismissed.’
Walsall Council has been approached for comment.