Two storey extension to front elevation

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 8 May 2018 by S Wilkinson BSc (Hons) DipUP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 24 May 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/U4610/D/18/3195455 2 Sixpence Close, Coventry CV4 8HL  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 Mrs Sarah Hirtenjohann against the decision of Coventry City Council.  The application Ref HH/2017/2228, dated 27 September 2017, was refused by notice dated 22 November 2017.  The development proposed is a two storey extension to front elevation. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matter 2. From other appeals I am determining elsewhere in the City I am aware that the policies from the Coventry Development Plan 2001 referred to by the Council in its decision notice have been superseded by policies from the Coventry City Council Local Plan (2017) (Local Plan) which was adopted since the proposal was refused. However, the character and appearance aims of both sets of policies are similar and so neither party has been prejudiced by this change in policy circumstances. The policy relevant to this appeal is DE1 as included in the Council’s decision notice and agreed by the appellant in their appeal statement. I am also aware that the SPG Extending Your Home – a Design Guide (SPG) was included in the list of SPGs to be carried forward with the new Local Plan (Appendix 6) and as such was not superseded when the Local Plan was adopted. Main Issue 3. The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the existing building and the surrounding area. Reasons 4. The appeal property is a large two-storey detached house located on a modern residential estate. The proposal involves the demolition of a mono-pitch front porch and the construction of a two-storey front extension to form a porch extension and study/bedroom accommodation. 5. The proposed two storey gable end structure would be attached to two existing gables on this front elevation. Although I did observe the variation in design Appeal Decision APP/U4610/D/18/3195455 2 between the properties in the area, I did record properties of the same design as the appeal property. I also observed examples of the presence of gable end features in the locality including a property with three gables along its front elevation. Indeed, the Council does not object to the principle of a third gable on the property. However, although set at a lower height than the adjoining gables, of concern is the siting of the proposal forward of one of the adjoining gables which contains a feature bay window. Whilst part of the bay window is screened from the public realm by mature hedging, it is an attractive feature and visible in the street scene. Unlike the existing recessed mono-pitch front porch which, although not a particularly remarkable feature, has been designed to be subordinate to these two existing gable end features, I find that the two- storey proposal would be an unduly dominant and incongruous feature on this front elevation. As such it would not enhance the design of the host building. 6. Although the property is not located on the corner of the road, it is still in a prominent location when entering Sixpence Close. It is acknowledged that the intention of the proposal is to create a focal point entrance to the property which being located on an area of hard surface would not involve the loss of landscaping in this front garden. However, despite the use of matching materials, the symmetry of the design, and the insertion of a window at first floor level, I find that the prominence of the proposal would be to diminish unacceptably the character, appearance and integrity of the host building with consequent harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. 7. I acknowledge that planning decisions should not stifle originality through unsubstantiated requirements to conform to certain development forms or styles. However, in this case, I have not found that the design of the proposal is of sufficient merit to warrant allowing such a prominent feature which is harmful to the character and appearance of the area and to the host dwelling. 8. The harm I have found to the character and appearance of the existing building and the area would fail to accord with the requirements of Policy DE1 of the Local Plan which seeks, amongst other things, to ensure that new development positively contributes towards the local identity and character of an area. The proposal would also be inconsistent with the design principles of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), of securing good design that would add to the overall quality of the area. Other Matters 9. I have had regard to the proposal being small in scale and required to meet the appellant’s needs to extend their property. I have also had regard to the site being located within a sustainable location and that there were no written objections received from the occupiers of neighbouring properties. However, I find that these matters do not outweigh the harm I have found from the proposal. Conclusion 10. For the reasons given above, the appeal does not succeed. S Wilkinson INSPECTOR