Appeal 3308867

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a two storey side extension at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application [name]/2022/1739, dated 28 June 2022, subject to the conditions below:-

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: C664/004, C664/002 [name].

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.

The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the street scene. The development plan includes policy DE1 of the Coventry City Council Local Plan (2017) which seeks to ensure that all proposals are of a high quality design. The National Planning Policy Framework also places great emphasis on high quality design and requires that developments add to the overall quality of the area.

[address] is a cul-de-sac of mainly small, modern semi-detached properties built to a similar design. Most dwellings have not been extended to the side. Narrow driveways separate each pair but whilst the gaps provide some limited openness, most of the openness in the street scene derives from the wider space between dwellings adjacent to the first bend on the eastern side of the road and from the rear gardens of properties in [address] and [address] that back onto [address].

The proposed extension would be set back from the front wall of the dwelling by 1m at first floor level above a car port and recessed ground floor and would align with the rear wall. It would extend up to the side boundary, contrary to the Council’s SPG ‘[name].

The plans show that the appeal dwelling is set back by some 4m from no 18 in the adjacent pair. Although the Council’s officer’s report refers to this as ‘a relatively minor stagger and is not considered large enough to prevent a terraced appearance’ I disagree with that assessment and find instead that it is a significant set back. This would mean that the extension would not be seen in the approach up the cul-de-sac and would only be seen from immediately outside the site because the road then bends towards the top of the cul-de-sac. Even if no 18 were extended in a similar manner, when seen from outside the site, the set back from the front wall and the ridge height below that of the main roof would be sufficient to avoid a terracing effect. That is because the front walls, eaves and ridges would not be aligned due to the staggered building line between the appeal site and its neighbour. Furthermore, the proposal would not affect the more significant gaps in the street scene.

As such, the proposal would not result in the loss of a significant gap and would not lead to a terracing effect. It would appear as a subservient addition to the property and would not be unduly prominent in the street scene. I conclude, therefore, that despite the conflict with the Council’s SPG, it would not significantly harm the character or appearance of the street scene and would be of a high quality design, in accordance with development plan policy DE1.

In addition to the standard commencement condition, a condition is necessary requiring that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans, in order to provide certainty. A condition requiring that materials match those of the existing dwelling is necessary in the interests of the character and appearance of the dwelling and the area.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.