Single storey rear and two storey side and rear extensions

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 3 February 2026 by T Morris BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI Decision by A M Nilsson BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 9th April 2026 Appeal Ref: 6002260 25 Mapleton Road, Coventry CV6 2AZ • 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 & Mrs Declan Keogh against the decision of Coventry City Council. • The application Ref is PL/2025/0001437/HHA • The development proposed is a single storey rear and two storey side and rear extensions. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal Procedure 2. The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons for the Recommendation 4. The appeal property comprises a two-storey end-terraced dwelling located in a residential area. In terms of its design, the existing dwelling has a hipped roof and a two-storey bay window column to the front elevation which is also hipped. The hipped roof form is consistent across the terrace as a whole. This helps to give it a coherent appearance overall which contributes positively to the character and appearance of the street scene. 5. The site occupies a corner plot at the junction of Mapleton Road and Birchfield Road. The side of the dwelling is set in from the footpath, in line with the front elevations of the nearest dwellings on Birchfield Road. These factors contribute to an open character at the junction which is a positive feature of the area. Moreover, even though some of the other dwellings at the junction have been extended, they still have space to the side, and they generally respect the surrounding building lines. Overall, the open corner plots and balanced spatial composition of the junction provide a sense of space in the street scene. This also contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area. 6. I have had regard of the Council’s Householder Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) (2023). Principle 3 of the SPD advises that side extensions should normally be proportionate to the existing dwelling, should be Appeal Decision 6002260 2 subservient with a lower ridge, and that the roof pitch and style should complement the existing dwelling. Principle 4 of the SPD advises that for extensions on corner plots, the width of the extension should be proportionate to the width of the original dwelling. It also advises that extensions should not infringe on the relevant building lines in the immediate vicinity and should maintain a minimum distance of at least 2m (measured at the narrowest point) between the edge of side extension and the boundary. Amongst other matters, this is so extensions appear subservient to the main dwelling and contribute to the visual amenity and character of a locality. 7. The proposed two storey side and rear extension would have a lower ridge height and would be set back from the front elevation of the existing dwelling. The side extension would also exceed the minimum distance of 2m between the edge of the extension and the boundary. Therefore, it would partly follow the advice in the SPD. 8. However, even though the width of the proposed two-storey side and rear extension has been reduced in negotiations with the Council, it would still appear excessively wide. It would be over half the width of the existing dwelling, something which the SPD seeks to avoid. It would therefore fail to appear obviously or sufficiently narrower than the width of the existing dwelling. Consequently, the width of the extension would not be proportionate to the width of the main dwelling. It would therefore fail to appear sufficiently subservient to the host dwelling and would undermine the quality of the residential environment. 9. The extension would be viewed in the context of the dwellings on Birchfield Road. As a result of its excessive width, the side extension would sit significantly forward of the building line on Birchfield Road. Therefore, even though it would maintain the gap to the boundary as required by the SPD, it would appear harmfully prominent and conspicuous at the corner plot. Whilst I accept that the garden area and detached garage would provide separation between the extension and the nearest dwellings on Birchfield Road, this would not be sufficient given the notable width of the side extension. In these circumstances, the proposal would harmfully erode the open character and spatial composition of the junction. 10. In design terms, the gable roof form of the extension’s rear section would fail to conform to the characteristic hipped roof design of the main dwelling and the wider terrace. It would be at odds with the main part of the roof of the dwelling, as well as the hipped roof section above the bay window. Therefore, the gable roof form would be incongruous with the design of the existing dwelling. This would harmfully erode the coherent appearance of the terrace, to the detriment of the character of the area. The use of matching materials would not be sufficient to successfully assimilate the proposal with the existing dwelling. 11. I have considered the developments referred to by the appellant, albeit I do not have the full plans for these in order to make a full comparison. The extension at 84 Birchfield Road (No 84) is close to the appeal site. However, it was approved in 2003 under a different planning policy context and before the Coventry Local Plan (2017) (CLP), the SPD and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) were in place. It is also different to the appeal scheme as it does not appear to significantly infringe upon any comparable building lines in the vicinity. Its rear section also has a hipped roof which matches the roof of the main dwelling. 12. The developments at 77 Hollyfast Road (No 77) and 200 Hollyfast Road (No 200) are further away from the appeal site. They are not in the same immediate street Appeal Decision 6002260 3 scene. The extension at No 77 was approved prior to the adoption of the SPD. The extension at No 200 was approved prior to the adoption of the CLP and the SPD. Both were approved prior to the publication of the current version of the Framework. In any case, both extensions are different to the appeal scheme as they have hipped roofs which reflects the roof form of the main dwelling. 13. Overall, for the reasons I have set out above, I only give limited weight to the examples of other developments referred to by the appellant. Consequently, they do not lead me to a different conclusion on this main issue. In any case, my recommendation is based on the individual merits of the appeal before me. 14. I therefore conclude that the proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. It would be contrary to Policies DE1 and H5 of the CLP, which require that developments positively contribute to the character of an area and enhance the surrounding residential environment. 15. For the same reasons, the proposal would be contrary to the SPD guidance, which advises that extensions should in most cases remain subservient to the main building whilst seeking to respect and contribute positively to the design of the host building. I see no justification for why the proposal should not follow this guidance. It would also be contrary to the Framework, which advises that developments should be sympathetic to local character and add to the overall quality of the area. Other Matters 16. The appellant refers to the supporting text of Policy H4 of the CLP. This highlights the need for larger three and four bedroomed family homes in Coventry. In that regard, I understand the proposal is sought to provide a larger modern family home for the appellant. However, I see no reasons why the benefits in terms of providing a larger family home could not be achieved through a development which is not harmful to the character and appearance of the area. Therefore, this policy does not alter my findings on the appeal overall. 17. The absence of objections from neighbours and statutory consultees, as well as the absence of harm to the living conditions of neighbours are neutral factors which do not weigh in favour of the appeal. Conclusion and Recommendation 18. The proposed development would be contrary to the development plan as a whole and there are no other material considerations which would outweigh this conflict. Therefore, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. T Morris APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 19. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. A M Nilsson INSPECTOR