Appeal 6010256

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for alterations and extension to convert a dormer bungalow to a two storey dwelling house at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/2025/0002238/HHA, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following drawings: site location plan and drawing numbers 9849-02, 9849-02 [name] and 9849-04 [name].

The extension hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the first floor side-facing window serving the proposed bedroom has been fitted with obscured glazing, and no part of that window that is less than 1.7 metres above the floor of the room in which it is installed shall be capable of being opened. Once installed, the window shall be retained as such thereafter.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on: • The character and appearance of the host property and the area; and • Adjacent occupiers’ living conditions, with particular regard to the outlook from, and availability of natural light to, [address] (‘No 45’).

The properties on this stretch of Eastern Green Road are set well back from the highway. Whilst those on its eastern side have a fairly consistent style, size and form, those to its west are much more diverse. In the short distance from No 37 to No 47 they include semi-detached houses, bungalows, one-and-a-half and two storey detached dwellings. The buildings’ contribution to the streetscene is limited by their recessed siting, along with some tall trees, landscaping and boundary treatment.

The host comprises a modestly sized detached bungalow with limited first floor accommodation served by a window in each of its side walls, and which sits behind tall frontage trees on a very spacious plot. It lies between bungalows with dormer windows at Nos 41 and 45.

The Council describes the proposal as bottom-heavy, with an under-scaled roof form. However, other than a sloping roof on its southern side above the ground floor games room, the building would be broadly two storeys high and with a corresponding eaves height. The main roof would cover that two storey expanse, and it would be hipped to reflect the form of many nearby, including parts of No 45 and the two storey house at No 39.

As illustrated by drawing No 9849-02 [name], there would be a reasonable gap between the proposed building and the buildings either side, and it would not appear out of scale with its neighbours. In the diverse context of the area, the resultant building’s scale, form and proportions would not appear out of place, and it would not disrupt any clearly established pattern or hierarchy of rooflines. Consequently, the scheme would not represent poor design and it would not harm the character and appearance of the host property or the area.

Amongst other things, and in general terms, Policy DE1 of the Coventry Local Plan 2017 (‘CLP’) requires high quality design, which respects and enhances its surroundings by responding to the physical context of the site and by considering local distinctiveness and identity. For the above reasons, the scheme would not conflict with that stance; nor with the advice at Principle 1 of the [name] Planning Document (‘SPD’) that extensions shall usually respect the form, scale, architectural style, and materials of the original building, but that alternative approaches with sound contextual rationales may also be acceptable.

As it would be well-designed and sympathetic to local character, and as it would accord with local design policies, the scheme would not conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework (‘Framework’), including its paragraphs 135 and 139.

I observed that, compared to the appeal site, No 45 is at a lower level. To the rear that property includes two windows in its side elevation facing No 43, which are set well in from the boundary fence. The proposed first floor rear extension would also be set in from that boundary such that, as shown on drawing no. 9849-02 [name], the distance between those windows and the scheme’s two storey side wall would be around 10.6 metres. Moreover, based on that drawing, the extension’s hipped roof, which would slope down towards the boundary, would not breach the SPD’s 25-degree rule drawn from the centre line of those windows.

Thus, given the scheme’s siting relative to No 45, along with its scale and form, and having regard to land levels and retained boundary treatment, the proposal would not have a harmfully adverse impact on the neighbouring occupiers’ outlook. For similar reasons, whilst No 45 lies to the north of the appeal site, based on the evidence before me, it would not cause those residents to suffer from significant overshadowing or loss of natural light.

On this issue, the proposal would not therefore conflict with CLP Policy DE1’s requirement for high quality design which respects its surroundings; nor with the SPD which sets out at Section 4.0 that extensions should not cause a material loss of amenity to neighbouring properties, as a result of matters including loss of outlook, visual intrusion, erosion of privacy, and overbearance. Neither would it conflict with the stance at paragraph 135 f) of the Framework to create places with a high standard of amenity.

I have found that the scheme would not harm the character and appearance of the host property or the area, and that it would not have a harmfully adverse impact on the living conditions at [address].

I have considered the matter of conditions against the tests in the Framework. As well as the standard time limit, in the interests of certainty, I have imposed a condition requiring that the development be carried out in accordance with the approved plans.

Finally, in its officer report the Council indicates that the scheme’s first floor windows facing No 45, as depicted on the floor plan, could be obscured in order to protect those occupiers’ privacy. As one of those windows would serve a bedroom, and as it would be located close to the boundary, I agree that, in order to prevent significant overlooking, a condition is necessary requiring that it be obscurely glazed and non-opening below 1.7m in accordance with the plan. No such condition is necessary for the other window as it would serve an en-suite, which is not a habitable space where people typically enjoy an outlook.

For these reasons, and having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is allowed.