Erection of a single storey rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 23 November 2018 by Gary Deane BSc (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 5th December 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/U4610/D/18/3213064 3 Eacott Close, Coventry CV6 2NL • 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 and Mrs Mark Ross against the decision of Coventry City Council. • The application Ref HH/2018/2199, dated 29 July 2018, was refused by notice dated 24 September 2018. • The development proposed is the erection of a single storey rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of a single storey rear extension at 3 Eacott Close, Coventry CV6 2NL in accordance with the terms of the application Ref HH/2018/2199, dated 29 July 2018, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Refs 17-3707-EX Revision A, 17-3707-PL Revision B, Block Plan and the Site Plan. 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. Main issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of 1 Eacott Close with particular regard to visual impact and light. Reasons 3. The appeal property is a semi-detached house within a modern style residential estate, wherein dwellings are similar in style and age. The proposal is to enlarge No 3 by erecting a single storey extension with a hipped roof that would project outwards from the main rear wall. The new addition would be longer, taller and thus larger than the existing rear conservatory, which would be demolished and removed to make way for the new addition. 4. In the rear elevation of the attached property, which is 1 Eacott Close, are a number of windows from which the proposed extension would be evident. At Appeal Decision APP/U4610/D/18/3213064 2 present, a lean–to open sided canopy structure is attached to the rear wall of No 1 that would obscure and probably impede views from the ground floor window of the main house nearest to the site. It is from this window that the effect of the proposal is likely to be most pronounced. From what I saw, the existing structure appears temporary in nature and may well be capable of being moved or removed at short notice. In those circumstances, the existing canopy may not be in place on a permanent basis. I have therefore proceeded on the basis that the assessment should be undertaken with views from the ground floor rear window of the main house nearest to the site unhindered. 5. Oblique views of the proposal would be evident from the rear windows of No 1. Even so, the new flank wall would be noticeably set back from the shared boundary between Nos 1 and 3. It would also be modest in height and so only the upper section of wall and roof projecting above the boundary fence would be seen from this vantage point. The main direction of outlook from the rear windows of No 1, which would be across the back garden, would be largely unaffected. For these reasons, the appeal scheme would not overbear or unduly dominate the outlook from the rear of No 1. As the new rear extension would be located broadly to the north of No 1 there would also be no appreciable loss of natural light to the rear of this adjacent property. 6. The Council raises particular concern that the appeal scheme would conflict with the guidance within its Supplementary Planning Guidance, Householder Design Guide (SPG) in two main ways. Firstly, the Council states that the proposal would breach a 45-degree line drawn from the nearest rear window of No 1. Secondly, the Council notes that the depth of the new addition would exceed the 3.3m maximum threshold identified in the SPG. I have no reason to reach a different opinion given the submitted evidence. However, the SPG acknowledges that each site is unique and that proposals should be determined on their own individual merits. Having done so, I find that the appeal scheme is acceptable for the reasons given. In those circumstances, a breach of these guidelines is insufficient reason to withhold planning permission in this case. 7. On the main issue, I conclude that the proposed development would not cause significant harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of No 1. Accordingly, there is no material conflict with Policy DE1 of the Coventry Local Plan 2016 and the Council’s SPG insofar as they aim to safeguard residential amenity. Conditions 8. In addition to the standard time limit condition, it is necessary to impose a condition that requires the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans for certainty. To ensure the satisfactory appearance of the finished dwelling, it is necessary to attach a condition that requires the use of external materials to match those of the existing dwelling. Conclusion 9. For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. Gary Deane INSPECTOR