Development was originally described as rear arbour/conservatory to rear of property adjoining house and front area of drive, grass removed and slabs laid for car parking

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 10 February 2026 by K Townend BSc MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 26 February 2026 Appeal Ref: 6000748 21 John Shelton Drive, Coventry CV6 4PE • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr Satkunarajah Gunaseelan against the decision of Coventry City Council. • The application Ref is PL/2025/0000948/HHA. • The development was originally described as rear arbour/conservatory to rear of property adjoining house and front area of drive, grass removed and slabs laid for car parking. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for erection of a rear conservatory/extension and paving to the front of the dwelling at 21 John Shelton Drive, Coventry CV6 4PE in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref PL/2025/0000948/HHA, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following condition: 1) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted location plan, block plan, and plans and elevations drawing number CV64PE_PR_PE_001. Preliminary Matters 2. Notwithstanding the description set out in the banner heading above, which is from the application form, the description from the Council’s decision notice is clearer. I have, therefore, used this description in the formal decision but removed the words which are not necessary to describe the development. 3. From the evidence submitted, and from my site visit, the development has commenced. I have dealt with the appeal on a retrospective basis but this has no bearing on my decision. Main Issue 4. The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the existing dwelling, the area, and the street scene. Reasons 5. The appeal property is a mid-terrace dwelling on a residential estate and forms part of a group of four houses at the end of a cul-de-sac. The rear extension, which has been built, is timber clad and has a polycarbonate roof. The exterior has been painted dark grey and the roof covered in felt sheeting. 6. Although the structure is not of materials that match the host dwelling, they do match the materials used in the structure to the rear of the neighbouring property Appeal Decision 6000748 2 and also match the fencing around the garden. The appeal scheme is also of a similar depth and height to the neighbouring structure. The dark grey timber has the appearance of a domestic shed which, although would not normally be fixed to the rear of the dwelling, would not be out of keeping with residential development. 7. Furthermore, the structure is only single storey and is not visible from any public vantage points, including from John Shelton Drive. It is not prominent in the outlook from any neighbouring properties with only the top section of the side elevation and the roof visible over the neighbour’s fence and is not dissimilar to both the neighbour’s extension and the design and scale of a conservatory. Although the extension is not of materials that match the house, it would not have a significantly negative effect upon the visual character of the area. 8. The extension as built would not detract from the character of the surrounding area and is of a scale and materials that are in keeping with residential developments in the area, even if it is not enhancing or in keeping with the host dwelling. Consequently, although the development would not wholly comply with the guidance in the Coventry City Council Householder Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (the SPD), I am not persuaded that the extension is harmful. 9. The frontages to the properties on the estate are varied and include a mix of grassed areas, planting, and hard surfaces. Some of the gardens are enclosed by low hedges or timber fences, including the low fence between 21 and 22 John Shelton Drive. The grassed frontages would have been part of the original layout of the estate and they ensure that the character remains open and pleasant and breaks up the hard surfaced areas. Nevertheless, I also saw that there are other properties which have hard surfaced frontages. 10. The slabs had been laid at the time of my visit and the appellant moved the parked vehicle so that I was able to see the extent of the paving. The development has resulted in the removal of the grass. However, there were planted pots along the boundary which retain some greenery to the frontage. Although the paving slabs are uneven the works could be rectified to provide an even surface. 11. The work would conflict with the SPD in that the use of paving slabs would not provide a porous surface and would result in deterioration of the street scene. Nevertheless, non-porous hard surfaces have already been carried out in the area and now form part of the characteristics of the estate. For these reasons, I find that the conflict with the SPD would not be substantial and that the hard surfacing of the frontage would not be significantly harmful. 12. For the above reasons and given the existing single storey structure on the neighbouring property and other hard surfaced frontages, I find that the development would not have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the existing dwelling, the area, or the street scene. It would, therefore, not conflict with Policy DE1 of the Coventry City Council Local Plan 2017 which, amongst other matters, requires development to respect and enhance their surroundings. Conditions 13. As the development has already commenced there is no need for the standard condition relating to the time period in which to commence the development. However, for clarity, a condition approving the plans is imposed. Appeal Decision 6000748 3 Conclusion 14. For the reasons given above, the appeal should be allowed. K Townend INSPECTOR