Appeal 3364698
Public case and site metadata stored from the official casework database, including fields that were empty in the source release.
A clearer next step
See how Inspectors approached issues like yours
Bring your planning decision into a private workspace. We separate the disputed points, then match them with source-located Inspector reasoning from similar appeals.
- See which issues the decision appears to turn on
- Compare the facts and open the full appeal records
One private comparison
How the refusal review worksOne-off service · No subscription
Similar appeals are evidence to inspect, not a prediction of your outcome.
Official decision document
The decision, section by section
6 sections
Read the development description and the Inspector’s text from the official decision PDF in source order. Source headings are retained where available. Personal and contact details are removed by an automated privacy filter; this is source material, not Rules for You analysis.
Section 01
Development description
No verified development description has been extracted from an official decision PDF yet.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
[name]
The main issue is the effect of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the area.
Section 04
Procedural Matter
The scheme before me is retrospective as development has already been carried out and I have assessed the scheme accordingly.
The scheme also included a rear outbuilding and it was common ground between the parties that such an outbuilding was acceptable. As such the decision below is concerned with the frontage alterations only.
Section 05
Reasons
The appeal property is a mid terrace house of brick construction with a double height box bay window to its frontage and rosemary tiles to its roof. This bay feature, and the rosemary tiles, are a typical architectural element within the streetscene here and several adjoining properties exhibit the same such elements. In this sense I consider that the bay feature and materials used are positive attributes of the street and contribute to a rhythm and architectural interest to the area.
The scheme before me seeks retrospective permission for the alteration of windows to this front elevation and the erection of a lean too canopy and porch building around the front door.
In assessing this appeal I am aware of the Council’s Householder Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) and Policy DE1 of the Coventry Local Appeal Decision Appeal Ref: APP/U4610/D/25/3364698 Plan (2017) that both seek to enhance the quality of new development within the city.
In this case, although the porch extension has been undertaken in brick, the structure has somewhat eroded the rhythm of the street as it relates to the distinctive square box bay windows along this stretch of [address]. As a result some of this rhythm and architectural form has been diluted.
This would not perhaps be so harmful were it not for the use of poor quality materials to the lean too roof and the alteration of the form of windows within this front elevation that have altered the proportion of the openings here and further divorced this property from the terrace to which it belongs. These have therefore introduced alien design features that further erode the quality of the street scene.
As such, the proposal before me does cause harm to the character of the streetscene here that would bring it into conflict with the above policies including DE1 of the LP, the [name] and the aspirations for good design as contained within the Framework itself.
Section 06
Conclusion
Ultimately, this scheme has introduced a poor quality of development within the area and has caused harm to the streetscene. As such, for the reasons given above, and taking into account of all other matters raised, I dismiss the appeal.
Planning inspector and document dates
The official casework attribution is grouped under a one-way keyed hash and shown only by its local identifier. Decision-letter dates and page references are extracted by fixed first-page rules and checked against that authoritative record.
Appeal Decision
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 30 June 2025Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 6 June 2025 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3364698
- Application reference
- PL/2024/0002442/HHA
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Coventry City Council
- Planning authority code
- E08000026
Casework details
The casework, procedure, development and linking details supplied by the official record.
- Casework type
- Householder (HAS)
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development type
- Householder developments
- Appeal type reason
- 1. Refused planning permission
- Appeal reason
- Refusal
- Type detail
- Planning Appeals - Full
- Jurisdiction
- Transferred
- Link status
- Not Linked
Site and development
Published appeal-site measurements and planning designations, without the withheld precise location fields.
- Site area
- Not recorded
- Floor space
- Not recorded
- Number of residences
- 0
- Site in Green Belt
- No
- Agricultural holding
- Not recorded
- Affects setting of a listed building
- Not recorded
- Historic building grant made
- Not recorded
- Relates to a conservation area
- Not recorded
- Flooding is an issue
- Not recorded
- Site within an AONB
- Not recorded
- Site within an SSSI
- Not recorded
Decision and dates
The published outcome and every imported case date.
- Official decision
- Dismissed
- Decision category
- Dismissed
- Received date
- 27 April 2025
- Valid date
- 27 April 2025
- Start date
- 29 April 2025
- Planning authority decision date
- 13 February 2025
- Appeal decision date
- 30 June 2025
Case administration
Published recovery, call-in, costs and enforcement information for this case.
- Redetermined
- No
- Bespoke
- No
- Date recovered
- Not recorded
- Date not recovered or derecovered
- Not recorded
- Call-in date
- Not recorded
- Costs applied for
- Not recorded
- Enforcement grounds count
- Not recorded
- Enforcement grounds
- Not recorded
Source and catalogue history
When this record appeared in the rolling official release and when the catalogue stored it.
- Source
- Planning Inspectorate casework database
- Source data system
- Horizon
- Dataset status
- Current release
- Catalogue record ID
- 72077
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:25
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:28
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:25
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21