Two storey side extension

Appeal Decision Site Visit made on 8 February 2021 by Mr Andrew Smith BA (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 16th February 2021 Appeal Ref: APP/U4610/D/20/3265213 32 Crampers Field, Coventry CV6 1HP • 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 Zaheer Hussain against the decision of Coventry City Council. • The application Ref HH/2020/1945, dated 18 August 2020, was refused by notice dated 19 November 2020. • The development proposed is two storey side extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The effect upon the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area. Reasons 3. The appeal property is semi-detached and occupies a corner plot where Crampers Field (the road) meets Randle Street. The road runs a semi-circular route to the perimeter of an area of publicly accessible open space. Randle Street is one of three evenly spaced offshoots from the road and eight similarly designed semi-detached properties address the road between where it meets Randle Street and Thamley Road. These features contribute towards the area having a formal, spacious and often green residential character and appearance. 4. The Extending your Home Supplementary Planning Guidance (adopted April 2003, reviewed December 2005) (the SPG) sets out specific advice for dwellings that occupy corner plots. It acknowledges that each site is unique and states that proposals will be determined on their own individual merits having regard to the local distinctive character of the area and certain general principles. These principles include that extensions should not infringe established building lines in the immediate vicinity and should maintain a minimum distance of 2m between the edge of a side extension and the site’s boundary. 5. The proposed extension would represent a sizable addition to the host dwelling and, at odds with the guidance set out in the SPG, would introduce built form in proximity to Randle Street. Indeed, the extension would erode the site’s openness and infringe the front building line followed by the nearest Randle Street properties located to the site’s rear. This would be observable notwithstanding the existence of fencing and a hedge to the site’s perimeter. Appeal Decision APP/U4610/D/20/3265213 2 6. Whilst care has been taken to seek to replicate the design and architectural style of the host property, the extension would appear as an unduly bulky and prominent addition. Indeed, it would compete with the host dwelling and unbalance the appearance of a similarly designed and well-proportioned pair of semi-detached properties. 7. It was apparent upon inspection that some alterations/additions have previously occurred to the eight similarly designed semi-detached properties identified above. Nevertheless, extensions have tended to be subservient in nature. Indeed, notwithstanding observable differences in the way outdoor spaces are treated and bound, a high degree of uniformity continues to exist. Furthermore, I observed corner plot properties (Nos 18, 24, 26, 32 Crampers Field) to be consistently positioned relative to their respective side boundaries. 8. For the above reasons, the proposed extension would appear as an unduly prominent and discordant addition and would thus cause harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area. The proposal conflicts with Policies DE1 and H5 of the Coventry Local Plan 2016 (adopted December 2017), the National Planning Policy Framework (February 2019) and the SPG in so far as these policies and guidance require that all development proposals must respect and enhance their surroundings and positively contribute towards the local identity and character of an area. Other Matters 9. The proposal would facilitate enlarged and improved living space for the site’s residential occupiers. However, particularly given that no new unit of residential accommodation is proposed, this is a benefit that attracts limited weight which would not outweigh the significant harm and associated policy conflicts that I have identified. The proposal conflicts with the development plan when read as a whole, and material considerations do not lead me to a decision otherwise. Conclusion 10. For the reasons given above, the appeal is dismissed. Andrew Smith INSPECTOR