Appeal 6003114

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for: alteration to the shopfront involving an extension to the frontage with an aluminium structure at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/2025/0001710/FUL.

I have amended the description of development from that given in the application form to remove words which do not describe an act of development.

During my site visit I saw that the development has been carried out, and that it appeared to be in accordance with the submitted plans. I have therefore considered the appeal on the basis that the development has already taken place.

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

The appeal site contains a two-storey commercial property. The ground floor is currently in use as a supermarket. It is located within a parade of commercial units on the southern side of [site address] . There is a wide footway between the front of the appeal premises and the carriageway of [site address] .

There is some variety in the design and appearance of the shopfronts in the vicinity of the appeal site, but they are predominantly characterised by window and door openings aligned with the rear of the footway. Many of the other shopfronts have external roller shutters. Apart from the appeal development, forward projecting features in the vicinity of the site are generally limited to hanging signs, housing for roller shutters and retractable awnings.

The structure for which permission is sought, is a dark coloured aluminium framed canopy. The canopy extends across most of the width of the shop’s frontage and projects approximately one metre from the front elevation of the building. The canopy is enclosed with roller shutters when the appeal premises is closed to customers. At the time of my site visit, during a weekday morning, the canopy was open and it was being used to display products for sale from the supermarket.

Although the canopy does not extend across the full width of the appeal property frontage, its vertical supports align with the vertical divisions between the shop front windows. Its dark aluminium frame and overall appearance is consistent with the commercial character of the building, and the frame colour complements the existing signage and awnings. As such, the canopy integrates well with the host building and does not detract from its character or appearance.

The canopy projects a short distance into the wide footway and less than the awning which sits above it. Even considering when the roller shutters are closed, and the awning is retracted, the canopy is not a prominent or incongruous feature in the street scene. This is in part due to the fact that roller shutters are characteristic of the area. As such, when closed, the canopy reads as part of the wider shopfront composition rather than as a separate or dominant addition.

Furthermore, as the canopy integrates effectively with the building, it does not appear as additional visual clutter in the area. Accordingly, whilst I acknowledge that forward projecting structures are not a defining characteristic of this part of [site address] , I find that the appeal development is compatible with the character and appearance of the area.

Taking all of the above into account, I find that the appeal development does not harm the character or appearance of the area. As such, I find no conflict with Policy DE1 of the Coventry Local Plan 2017 which requires proposals to respect and enhance their surroundings and positively contribute towards the local identity and character of the area.

I have considered the argument that the grant of planning permission would set a precedent for other similar developments. However, each application and appeal must be determined on its own individual merits. In this case, I have found that the context of the site, particularly the wide footway frontage serves to limit the visual and spatial impacts of the appeal development. The Council states that they are taking enforcement action against other forward projecting structures in the area, however, I have not been provided with examples of any that are directly comparable to the appeal development. Therefore, this concern does not justify withholding permission in this case.

I have had regard to comments from a neighbouring occupier to the rear concerning waste and parking. However, there is no evidence before me to demonstrate that the appeal development results in additional waste generation or increased parking demand. I also note that there is no objection from the Council on the basis of parking or environmental health. Insofar as concerns relate to the obstruction of a private garage, this is a civil matter and matters such as fly-tipping are addressed under separate legislation. These considerations therefore do not alter my conclusions on the appeal.

An interested party has objected on the basis that the proposal would adversely affect horse welfare and the countryside due to a nearby equestrian centre. However, this concern is not substantiated in the representation, which I note originates in Morpeth, Northumberland, and no details of the equestrian centre’s location have been provided. The site is located in an urban commercial area, and I did not see evidence of any equestrian centre nearby. Based on my site observations and the evidence before me, I have no reason to conclude that the proposal would adversely affect horse welfare or the countryside. As such, this consideration does not alter my findings on the main issue of this appeal.

As the development has already taken place, a condition requiring compliance with plans is not necessary, nor is the standard time limit.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed.