Rear conservatory and garden shed
📊
See the success rate & inspector analytics
Free to view — just create an account, no payment needed.
Sign Up FreeTechnical Issues Heatmap
Residential Amenity
Extensions
Inspector’s Reasoning
Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 14 June 2018
by P B Jarvis DipTP MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 03 July 2018
Appeal Ref: APP/U4610/D/18/3199445
25 Gretna Road, Coventry CV3 6DY.
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 Tinna Jing against the decision of Coventry City Council.
The application Ref HH/2018/0110, dated 10 January 2018, was refused by notice dated
8 March 2018.
The development is a rear conservatory and garden shed.
Procedural Matter
1. The conservatory has already been constructed but the garden shed has not.
Decision
2. The appeal is dismissed insofar as it relates to the rear conservatory.
3. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a garden shed at
25 Gretna Road, Coventry CV3 6DY, in accordance with the terms of
application ref. HH/2018/0110 dated 10 January 2018, subject to the following
conditions:
1) The development hereby permitted, which for the avoidance of doubt is the
garden shed only, shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this
permission.
2) This permission shall relate to the following plans: AMA311-001 (site
location plan); AMA 311-002 (existing plans); AMA311-007 (shed details).
Main Issue
4. The main issue is the effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of the
adjoining property, No. 23 Gretna Road.
Reasons
5. The appeal property is a modern end of terrace dwelling. It has been extended
to the rear with a single storey extension across the width of the dwelling,
constructed of brick elevations and tiled roof to match the existing dwelling.
6. The conservatory has been added to this rear extension and also extends
across almost the whole width of the plot adding a further depth of just over 3
metres. The conservatory has a hipped glazed roof with glazing to all
elevations above a low brick plinth. The single storey extension and
Appeal Decision APP/U4610/D/18/3199445
2
conservatory extend to a total depth of just over 6 metres beyond the original
rear elevation of the host dwelling.
7. The adjoining property, No. 23 Gretna Road, is as originally built with no
additions or extensions to the rear. It has a window and rear patio doors in the
rear elevation of the property. The Council’s Householder Design Guide SPG
states that single storey rear extensions should not exceed either 3.3 metres
measured externally or impinge on an imaginary 45 degree sightline from the
middle of the nearest window in the adjoining property.
8. In this case, the conservatory exceeds both these guidelines. Whilst the
conservatory is primarily of glazed elevations, and does not present a solid
appearance, I consider that it does have a detrimental impact on the outlook
from the adjoining property, resulting in a harmful sense of enclosure.
9. Furthermore, and notwithstanding the glazed elevations, because it impinges
the 45 degree sightline, it is likely to have reduced the level of light to the
adjoining property, exacerbated by its orientation to the south-west of this
property.
10. I find that the conservatory has a harmful effect on the living conditions of the
occupiers of No. 23 Gretna Road. This would be contrary to policy DE1 of the
Coventry Local Plan 2016 which requires development to respect and enhance
their surroundings. It also fails to satisfy guidance in the SPG for the reasons
set out above.
11. The Council does not object to the garden shed and I note that it is of a
reasonable size suitable for the modest garden of the appeal property. It
would be located adjacent to the rear boundary and would not result in any
adverse impact on adjoining properties. As this is a physically separate element
I intend to issue a split decision, allowing this shed but dismissing the
conservatory. A condition is necessary to refer to the approved plans in the
interests of proper planning.
12. I conclude that this appeal should be dismissed in part and allowed in part.
P Jarvis
INSPECTOR
Expert Representation
Don't leave your appeal to chance.
Inspectors are inconsistent. We build a technical defense using precedents from our 182,000+ case archive.
No win, no fee Householder representation — you only pay if you win.