Appeal 3328846

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed two storey side extension on the character and appearance of the host property and the area.

The appeal property at No. [site address] (No. 153) is a two storey semi-detached dwelling with a garage attached at the side. It is located in a mature well-established residential area characterised by semi-detached and terraced properties set back from the road behind front gardens/driveways. Although there is some variation in the design and style of the other properties, the appeal property forms part of the row of properties typically characterised by two storey semi-detached dwellings of comparable scale and form, with distinctive projecting bay window frontages and hipped tiled roofs.

The appeal proposal would entail the construction of a two storey side extension that would be set-in about 0.4m from the front elevation and would be built up to the common shared side boundary with the adjacent unextended property at No. [address] (No. 151), which is set slightly higher than the appeal site due to the sloping topography in the area. The two storey side extension would extend across the full width of the house and would be stepped down below the ridge of the host property with a hipped tiled roof. The proposal would also involve the construction of a single storey pitched roofed rear extension and detached outbuilding at the rear.

The Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance Document: [name] 2023 (SPD) states that, to prevent the linking of non-terraced houses, first floor side extensions should normally be set in 0.5m from the side property boundary and set back 1m from the front principal elevation boundary.

The proposed extension would not appear overlarge, relative to the overall plot size. The scale and form of the proposed two storey side extension would nevertheless still be a significant addition relative to the main property. As such, although set-in and stepped down, the proposed extension would result in additional bulk at the side of the main dwelling that would be out of character with the more modest form and appearance of the host building. Despite the slight variation in site levels between Nos. 151 and 153, if the adjacent property at No. 151 was extended at first floor level, the lack of setback from the side property boundary would contribute towards a potential adverse terracing effect in this particular location.

These shortcomings would be exacerbated by the proposal’s position, which would be visible from a number of public vantage points along [address]. The proposed two storey side extension, by virtue of its scale, siting and design, would fail to achieve an appropriate degree of subordination to the host property and would result in an incongruous and out-of-keeping addition that would cause unacceptable harm to the host property and the area.

I have considered the appellant’s arguments that the design and layout of the proposed extension have been carefully considered in order to minimise any adverse impacts on the host property and the area. However, whilst the use of matching materials and fenestrations would assist in integrating the proposal with the host property and the area, these aspects do not overcome the adverse effects outlined above.

Consequently, I conclude that the two storey side extension would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host property and area and conflicts with Policy DE1 of the Coventry Local Plan 2017 and the Council’s SPD. This policy and guidance, amongst other things, seek to ensure that new development proposals and extensions to residential properties demonstrate a high quality design that respects and enhances the surrounding residential environment and positively contribute towards the local identity and character of an area. In addition, it would not accord with the National Planning Policy Framework that developments should seek to secure a high quality of design (paragraph 126) that are sympathetic to the local character (paragraph 130).

I have noted the other developments in the area drawn to my attention by the appellant. However, the various two storey and first floor side extensions and alterations have different development characteristics to the appeal scheme. In any event, each proposal falls to be assessed primarily on its own merits and I am unaware of the full circumstances associated with these other cases.

For the reasons given above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.