Development proposed is: a two-storey extension to side

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 28 November 2017 by Martin H Seddon BSc DipTP MPhil MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 18 December 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/W3710/D/17/3183660 2 Cardigan Road, Bedworth, Warwickshire, CV12 0LY  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.  The appeal is made by Mr Malcolm Stockdale against the decision of Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council.  The application Ref: 034831, dated 22 April 2017, was refused by notice dated 13 June 2017.  The development proposed is: a two-storey extension to side. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed Main Issues 2. The proposal involves an increase in width of a previously approved extension and a larger garage to the rear. The main issues are:  the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the building and street scene, and  the effect on highway safety. Reasons Highway safety 3. The Highway Authority objected to the application because the access to the site was not considered suitable for an intensification of use. No alterations to the access were proposed, and the garage would be bigger than that already approved. The, Highway Authority considered that the appeal proposal could result in more vehicle movements associated with the site. 4. I see no reason to disagree. The potential harm to highway safety would be insufficient on its own to warrant dismissal of this appeal, however it does add weight to my decision. Character and appearance 5. No.2 Cardigan Road is an end of terrace dwelling. It is located within an area of similar terraces which have gable end walls facing Cardigan Road. 6. The proposal would involve the enlargement of the existing garage plus a further garage to the rear, next to the flank wall of the existing storm porch, Appeal Decision APP/W3710/D/17/3183660 2 marked as a lounge on the plans. There would be a bedroom and ensuite above the main garage at the front of the house. A canopy and pitched roof are also proposed to replace the flat roofs of the single storey extensions at the front of the building. 7. The rear paved area of the dwelling is larger than the rear amenity space of other dwellings in the terrace. However, the overall effect of the proposal would be a significant reduction in the area that is open. The proposed two storey extension would be sited around 1 metre from the boundary with Cardigan Road. The proposed blank side elevation would appear overly large in size and scale because of its proximity to the road and addition of the new garage to the rear. This large blank elevation would face other dwellings on the opposite side of Cardigan Road. It would conflict with the Council’s Residential Design Guide, which indicates that extensions should not appear prominent or incongruous or result in large blank elevations visible in the street scene. 8. The use of matching materials could be secured through the imposition of a planning condition. Despite this, the site would appear overdeveloped and the proposed extension to the building would be out of keeping with the scale and character of the locality, contrary to policy ENV14 of the Nuneaton and Bedworth Local Plan. 9. The appellant believes that a precedent has been set by extensions to other dwellings in the area, including No.1 Ryhope Close and its extension, which is less than 1 metre from the boundary wall, and No.2 Ryhope Close which has a large garage. Both these dwellings are a distance from the appeal site of around 100metres. No.1 Hamilton Close has a side extension which is around 1 metre from its boundary wall. It is also around 100 metres from the appeal site and on the same estate. The appellant advises that there are other dwellings on the estate that have large two storey rear extensions. 10. I inspected the dwellings at Ryhope Close and Hamilton Close at my site visit. Although these have extensions and out-buildings, they are not identical to the proposal at the appeal site. Each case must be determined on its individual merits, having regard to its site circumstances and relevant development plan policies. I consider that the existence of these other developments form insufficient precedence to allow the appeal before me. 11. I have taken all other matters raised into account. I acknowledge the appellant’s requirement for additional garaging and accommodation. However, for the reasons given above the appeal is dismissed. Martin H Seddon INSPECTOR