Appeal 6001709

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 issues are the effect of the proposed development on: i) the character and appearance of the area; and, ii) the living conditions of occupiers of [address] (No 98), in terms of outlook.

The appeal property comprises a two-storey end-terraced dwelling located in a residential area. It is part of a terrace which includes projecting two storey front elements at either end, between which is a single storey mono-pitched projection that aligns with them. The dwelling at the other end of the terrace has a projecting front bay window. Nevertheless, the consistent front building line of the terrace and the unifying front projections give it a visual coherence which is a positive element of the street scene.

I have had regard to the guidance in the Council’s Householder Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) which advises that front extensions should not project forward of the established building line. It also states that they should have a roof profile which compliments the main roof of the house, and should maintain distinctive features, including roof lines that complement the existing property. Further, the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) requires developments to be visually attractive and add to the overall quality of the area.

Due to the depth of the proposed porch, it would project noticeably beyond the front building line of the appeal property and the terrace. Its roof would be higher and would have a shallower profile than the existing mono-pitched roof which unifies the terrace. Furthermore, in contrast to the bay window on the other end of the terrace, the proposed canopy would cover the entire two storey front projection, and its roof profile would be shallower than the mono-pitched roof. Taking these factors together, the porch and canopy would be incongruous additions which would harmfully erode the visual coherence of the terrace, particularly evident in views from [address]. The use of matching materials and detailing would not be sufficient to successfully integrate the extensions to the site.

I acknowledge that there are varying front extensions and alterations, including porches and canopies in the area. However, many of these serve to demonstrate the harmful impact that unsympathetic extensions can have on the appearance of the local area. I observed on my site visit that such developments cumulatively erode the character and quality of the street scene. Accordingly, the examples of similar developments in the area do not justify the proposal which would result in further harm to the character and appearance of the street scene.

I therefore conclude that the proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. This would be contrary to Policy DE1 of the Coventry Local Plan (CLP) (2017), which amongst other matters, require that developments positively contribute towards local identity and the character of an area.

To the rear, the appeal property has a mono-pitched roof extension and garage and a small outbuilding which are separated from No 98 by a boundary fence. The adjoining property has a modest rear garden and a rear ground floor window close to the boundary fence.

The existing rear addition and outbuildings would be demolished to make way for the proposed development. The Framework requires developments to provide a high standard of amenity for existing users.

With a depth of 4 metres, the new flat roof rear extension in isolation would comply with one of the principles for such additions set out in the Council’s SPD. However, the proposal also includes a pitched roof garage which would be larger and higher than the existing one.

Together, the new rear extension and garage would occupy 8 metres along the shared boundary with No 98, leaving only around a 2.9 metre gap in the built form. They would be substantially higher than the boundary fence.

There is no dispute that the appeal scheme would not unduly overshadow neighbouring properties. However, due to the height and extent of built development along the boundary, together the proposed extension and garage would dominate the outlook from the neighbouring rear garden and ground floor room. This would cause an unacceptable sense of enclosure to the occupants of No 98 when using these spaces.

I therefore conclude that the proposed development would harm the living conditions of occupiers of No 98, in terms of outlook. This would be contrary to Policy DE1 of the CLP where it requires proposals to respect their surroundings.

The proposed development would be contrary to the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, I recommend that 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.