Appeal 6002142

The appeal is dismissed.

The first main issue to be determined in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surroundings. The second is whether the proposals include a safe and convenient access to the development. The third is whether the proposed development would meet the requirements of [name].

The appeal site is located in the northern part of Coventry, in a predominantly residential area. [address] is a through route, with wide footpaths set with mature trees. It is lined with residential properties, predominantly two-storey detached and semi-detached homes.

Number [site address] is a detached dwelling, in a chalet bungalow style, with some rooms on the first floor. There is a large outbuilding to the rear that appears to provide additional residential accommodation. The front garden is limited in area, although there are two vehicular accesses and the site accommodates a number of cars parked within its front boundary. At the rear, however, there is a large open garden, mainly laid to grass.

It is now proposed to subdivide the rear garden and to construct a new, detached three-bedroom bungalow at the rear of the plot. The access to the new bungalow would lie alongside the existing dwelling, where a side access to the rear garden already exists.

The ‘National Planning Policy Framework’ emphasises the aim of “achieving well designed places” in the broadest sense (notably at Section 12), while making effective use of land and encouraging economic activity. It is aimed at achieving Appeal Decision: 6002142 good design standards generally, by adding to the overall quality of the area and being visually attractive and sympathetic to local character and history, although it is also recognised that appropriate change may include increased densities. The achievement of good design includes protecting existing residential amenities and providing good standards of accommodation in new development.

This emphasis on the importance of good design is reflected in the Development Plan and particular reference has been made to Policies in the ‘Coventry City Council Local Plan’ (which was adopted in December 2017). Among other things, Policies DE1 and H3 of the Local Plan are concerned with “[name]”, making it clear that proposed development ought to “respect and enhance” the surroundings, contributing towards the “local identity and character of an area”.

At the same time, both the Development Plan and national planning policy more generally point out the importance of achieving sustainable development (for example at Policy DS3 of the Local Plan).

Under the broad heading “Promoting sustainable transport”, Section 9 of the revised ‘National Planning Policy Framework’ deals with a number of transport related issues, including the requirement to secure “safe and suitable access” to proposed development sites. Similarly, various Policies in the Development Plan include references to the need for safe and convenient access provision (for example Policies AC2, AC3 and AC4 of the Local Plan).

Policies in the Development Plan also identify the need to “conserve, restore or enhance biodiversity” (including Policies DS3(q) and GE3 of the Local Plan).

The appeal site is located within an established residential area, where there is a variety of building types and plot sizes. It would create a new bungalow with a reasonable scale of accommodation and would thus contribute to the need to provide new homes, albeit in a small way. This weighs in favour of the appeal, of course.

Nevertheless, the new bungalow would be deficient in some respects. It would be positioned close to the rear boundary of the existing plot and the outlook from windows on the rear elevation would be poor. The bungalow would have no “back garden” and the front garden would be part of the space that is also shared with the access and parking area for the property.

Moreover, both the new plot and the plot that would be retained with the existing dwelling at number 287 would be small be comparison with some other nearby sites and would be cramped and awkward in character. The layout would not be in keeping with the surroundings generally, even though the adjoining house at number [address] is also sited on a smaller plot (with a main elevation directly to the road, however).

I am also convinced that the closeness of the development to its neighbours and the unorthodox layout of the proposed garden and access would give rise to an undue intensification of the use of the site and disturbance to other residents (notwithstanding comments made in the [name] on the planning application) as well as a poor environment for occupiers of the new bungalow itself. Appeal Decision: 6002142

I am aware that it may be possible to add to the volume of buildings on the site by the application of “permitted development” rights, but such a project would be very different from the creation of a new independent dwelling. Hence, I am convinced that the appeal scheme would be seriously out of keeping with and detrimental to the character and appearance of the surroundings, contrary to formal planning Policies in both the ‘National Planning Policy Framework’ and the Local Plan. It ought not to be allowed, therefore.

The proposed access driveway itself is also rather cramped. The space between the flank wall of the existing dwelling and its side boundary is rather narrow and the paired access points on the front boundary would be close together. Visibility for vehicles crossing the footpath would be poor. [name] am persuaded that the access arrangements would be reasonably safe, if not ideal, the overall effect would be to reinforce the cramped nature of the development.

Turning to the bio-diversity issue, I note that an attempt was made to make a submission based on the “[name]”. The existing garden is largely laid to grass and, from my view of the site, it appears to be of limited value in terms of biodiversity. It is nevertheless necessary for the requirements of [name] (BNG) to be met in the context of new development. It may well have been possible for this to have been dealt with by the imposition of conditions, if the proposal had otherwise been acceptable, but in view of my other concerns the question of conditions does not arise.

Evidently, the appeal site lies within an established urban area, which is a “sustainable” location in planning terms. The contribution that the appeal scheme would make to economic activity and the creation of a new residential unit both weigh in favour of the appeal. Nevertheless, I am convinced that the harm that would be done to the character and appearance of the area clearly outweighs the benefits of the project.

Hence, I have concluded that the scheme before me would conflict with both national and local planning policies (including the Development Plan) and that it ought not to be allowed. [name] have considered all the matters that have been raised in the representations, I have found nothing to cause me to alter my