Appeal 6007553

The appeal is dismissed.

I have utilised the Council’s description of the proposal as I find it describes the proposal more concisely.

Works have already commenced on site. Whilst this is acknowledged it does not change the basis, or approach, for determination, and the proposal is to be determined on the basis of the plans provided.

The main issues are the impact of the proposal upon i) neighbouring residential amenity with regard to overlooking and loss of privacy, ii) character and appearance of the host dwelling, the semi-detached pair and the street scene and iii) the residential amenity of future occupiers with regard to outlook.

The appeal site consists of a semi-detached property which stands within a predominantly residential area. The host dwelling, as a result of previous extensions, is much broader (in terms of the front elevation) compared to its attached neighbour ([address] South) with that existing extension already being non-subservient (to the original host dwelling) as a result of a lack of set-back, set-down or similar.

Whilst the previous extension fails to be subservient as outlined, the pair of properties maintain a gable-ended form, shared alignment of their front elevations, a consistent roofline and similarly styled windows and features which still continue to contribute to some form of balanced architectural merit as a result of the semi-detached pair of dwellings. The appeal site, and its attached neighbour, therefore, continue to make a positive contribution to the streetscene within an area where there are a variety of dwelling types.

The existing rear elevation at the appeal site has no first-floor windows which contributes to [address] (no. 11), to the rear of the appeal site, not being overlooked by the host dwelling. The proposal would introduce an additional first floor rear window which would directly face the neighbour, to the rear, at no. 11. The proposed first floor rear facing window would be in close proximity to, and offer direct views of, the rear adjoining private outdoor amenity space, serving no. 11, as well as offering direct views of the rear first floor windows. The proposal would, therefore, result in overlooking and loss of privacy to a level which would be unacceptable in terms of neighbouring residential amenity of no. 1 even taking into account the established hedge along the boundary.

The relationship between the proposed first floor rear window, and no. 11, would be unacceptable. Even if the proposed window were sufficient to meet the minimum interface distances set out within the Coventry City Council Householder Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document 2023 (SPD) this would not overcome the close proximity and issue with regard to the ability to notably overlook the rear elevation and back garden of no. 11 – particularly the area immediately adjacent to the rear elevation. I do not find that reliance on the boundary hedge is appropriate, or sufficient, to consider the extent of overlooking as acceptable.

The appellant outlines, within their statement, that a substantial hedge of approximately 6 metres in height exists along the rear boundary. It is unlikely that the hedge would sufficiently eliminate the overlooking effects or perceived overlooking with the hedge appearing to have been cut down, in height, relatively recently based upon my observations during my site visit. This has resulted in a hedge which appears lower than that height stated by the appellant. Furthermore, the hedge appeared to be behind the boundary wall of the appeal site which suggest, in the absence of evidence to the contrary before me, that the hedge is outside the control of the appellant meaning a condition could not be imposed to ensure its retention and/or retention to a specified height.

Whilst rear facing windows are a common and expected feature in residential areas, and some intervisibility between properties is to be expected, in this case the introduction of first floor rear windows in such close proximity to the shared boundary and garden of no. 11 would be unacceptable in terms overlooking and loss of privacy. [name] note the appellant’s willingness to amend the proposals, I have no alternative drawings to show potential amendments and, furthermore, the proposal falls to be considered on the basis upon which the Council made their decision, and upon which interested parties were able to consult and respond.

The proposal would be contrary to Coventry Local Plan 2017 (LP) Policy DE1 which seeks to ensure development proposals must respect their surroundings as well as conflicting with paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (the Framework) which seeks to ensure developments create places with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.

The SPD is clear, in terms of its overarching objectives with regard to design, that where front extensions are proposed, distinctive features of the host dwelling should be maintained, whilst rooflines and facing materials should complement the existing property. Side extensions should normally be proportionate and subservient with a roof pitch, style and materials which should also complement the existing dwelling house. Whilst the proposed front extension would not breach the building line, it can be seen, from the submitted plans, that it would still result in a substantial projection. The proposed catslide roof, combined with the bulk, scale and massing would conflict with the existing character, form and balance of the host dwelling in the context of the semi-detached pair.

The proposal would dominate the original architectural form of the dwelling and would significantly undermine the visual harmony which, despite the existing extensions, still forms a distinctive and notable character for the semi-detached pair as a whole. The proposed extensions, individually and cumulatively, would result in overly bulky and incongruous additions which would be unacceptably harmful to both the character and appearance of the host dwelling as well as the symmetry and balance of the detached pair with further impacts which would result in unacceptable development when viewed within the appearance of the general street scene despite the setback from the road.

I do not find that the proposed extensions are proportionate. The bulk, scale and massing, combined with a catslide roof, would overwhelm the original structure of both the host dwelling and the pair of semi-detached dwellings with the design failing to reflect the architectural character of the existing property. Variations to semi-detached properties within the surrounding area, noted by the appellant, are acknowledged but each case must be considered on its own merits and whilst strict symmetry may not always be maintained, in this case the proposal would significantly undermine the visual harmony and distinctive character of the pair.

The extension would dominate the original architectural form and would fail to integrate appropriately with both the host dwelling, the semi-detached pair and the wider street scene. The proposal would be contrary to LP Policy DE1 which requires that development respects and enhances its surroundings and positively contributes to the local identity and character of the area. Furthermore, as noted above, the proposal would also be contrary to the guidance and objectives set out within the SPD with regard to front and side extensions.

The third refusal reason relates to adequate outlook to the first-floor rear bedroom in terms of satisfactory living conditions for future occupiers of the proposal. The plans show a first-floor bedroom whose only source of light, and outlook, would be a rooflight. I find that this is likely to result in a habitable room which would, ultimately, result in a poor standard of living accommodation with no proper window for outlook. The appellant contends that a side window could have been introduced, however, I have not been provided with alternative drawings to demonstrate this, and the proposal must be determined on the basis upon which the council made their determination.

Even if I had concluded that the introduction of a side window could have overcome the third refusal reason, the appeal would still have been dismissed as this would not overcome the harm identified in the context of the other main issues discussed above within this decision letter. The proposal would, therefore, fail to provide satisfactory living conditions in the context of this habitable room which would be to the detriment of future occupiers of the proposal and contrary to LP Policy DE1 which seeks to ensure high quality design. The proposal would also be contrary to paragraph 135 of the Framework which seeks to ensure that developments create places with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.

The appellant has raised a lack of engagement by the Council having materially affected the outcome which is stated to run contrary to the principles of a positive and proactive planning system. The handling of the proposal is outside the scope of this appeal which is not accompanied by an application for costs. Notwithstanding this based upon my assessment of the proposal there would be multiple issues with the proposal as submitted which would go beyond the scope of minor amendments. I have no evidence before me to suggest that a lack of engagement by the Council has materially affected the outcome on this occasion.

I note objections to the proposal from interested parties received during the application period. I have dealt with matters relating to overlooking, and privacy, in the context of neighbouring residential amenity within the main issues noted above. Impact upon the property’s future sale in terms of desirability and value are not a material planning consideration. I have also dealt with matters relating to character and appearance in the context of the semi-detached pair, and the host dwelling itself, within the main issue above though matters relating to future maintenance and access are outside the scope of this appeal.

The proposal also includes a new boundary wall and gates, however, none of the Council’s refusal reasons relate to concern with this particular element. The area within the immediate locality of the appeal site, within which the proposal would be viewed, displays a variety of boundary treatments which vary from soft landscaping to low to medium height walls and fencing. The proposed boundary wall and gate would be in the region of 1.8 metres high (to the top of the pillars) and in the region of 1 metre high towards the front with a gate in the region of 1.3 metres (to the top). I understand, from the Councils delegated report, that this has been reduced towards the front of the appeal site following a previous refusal and that they now find the proposal more in keeping with the general height of boundary treatments within the streetscene. Based upon the plans before me, and my site visit, I find no reason for refusal or concern with specific regard to the proposed boundary wall and gates at the appeal site.

For the reasons outlined above, and taking into account all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.