Appeal 6000817

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

[site address] (No 296) is a detached, one and a half storey property which has a half-hipped roof to the front and rear elevations and catslide roofs to both sides. The main entrance is located to the side of the property, and the front elevation features a small bay window to the ground floor, flanked by further narrow windows, and a large central window to the first floor which provide the dwelling with a notable symmetry. There is a single chimney stack to the roof, and the dwelling is rendered with quoin detailing. Together these features make for a dwelling of distinctive design and appearance.

[address] features detached and semi-detached dwellings ranging from single storey to two-storey. Even accounting for the variety of design, there is much order in terms of dwellings mainly being set back from the highway, the clean roofscapes with a general absence of front dormers and the traditional features, notably including chimneys. Where extensions have taken place, they are generally of a subservient design and respect the character of their host. This provides for a varied but cohesive street scene and where distinctive architecture does exist, this positively contributes to the local identity and character of [address].

Due to the roof of the extension markedly exceeding the existing ridgeline, its position substantially set back from the front, and its mass which would arc around the main roof, the proposal would appear as a domineering, tacked-on addition. The removal of the dwelling’s chimney, introduction of an uncharacteristic front dormer window, and the tight positioning of the garage door alongside the existing side elevation, would further detract from the distinctive architecture and symmetry of the host dwelling. This would also be to the detriment of the appearance of the street.

Moreover, as the overwhelming effect of the proposed development would not be subservient and as the dormer would not complement the style of the host dwelling, this would conflict with the Coventry City Council Householder Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2023) (SPD).

Overall, the proposed development would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area. In that regard, it would conflict with Policy DE1 of the Coventry City Council Local Plan (2017) which requires all development to respect and enhance their surroundings and positively contribute towards the local identity and character of an area.

The appellant has referenced a previous scheme for extension to the host dwelling that was granted planning permission. However, there are no specific details of that particular proposal before me and there is a suggestion that design adjustments have been made. Therefore, I am unable to verify that the appeal proposal before me is comparable. Furthermore, the reference in the ‘[name] section of the Council’s report suggests the most recent planning permission for an extension to the dwelling related to a planning application made in 2006. Given the extended period of time that has passed and that I am unaware of the material considerations in that instance, I have assessed the scheme before me on its own merits having regard to the existing site context and current development plan requirements.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.