Proposed two-storey front and side extension, garage conversion and internal alterations

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 9 June 2026 by Andrew Fulford BSc MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 25 June 2026 Appeal Ref: 6008554 12 Kinross Close, Nuneaton, Warwickshire CV10 7LP • 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 Lee Douglas against the decision of Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council. • The application Ref is 041424. • The development is a proposed two-storey front and side extension, garage conversion and internal alterations. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a proposed two- storey front and side extension, garage conversion and internal alterations at 12 Kinross Close, Nuneaton, Warwickshire CV10 7LP in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 041424 and the plans submitted with it, 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 Location Plan and drawing Nos 003B and 004B. 3) The external materials of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling. Preliminary Matters 2. The scheme includes a garage conversion and internal alterations. There is no disagreement between the main parties over the acceptability of these elements of the scheme. Accordingly, my consideration of this appeal focuses solely on the merits of the two-storey front and side extension. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Reasons 4. Kinross Close is located within a residential area characterised by a mix of detached and semi-detached properties. Immediately adjacent to the appeal site the prevailing character consists of houses with front-facing gables forming the main building frontage. Dwellings are generally constructed in brick with elements of cladding and grey tiled roofs. Appeal Decision 6008554 2 5. The appeal property is sited on a notably wider corner plot and is positioned at a 90-degree angle to the main route through the cul de sac. The design of the original dwelling reflects the characteristics of the surrounding properties although the property has an existing 2 storey side and rear extension. The existing extension mimics the design of the host property but is set back a significant distance from the front elevation. 6. The proposed extension would be completed in matching brickwork with windows of a similar size to those in the existing dwelling to maintain uniformity. Although the first floor extension is similar in width the main house and is flush with the front elevation, it would remain subordinate due to the step down in the roofline. This height difference maintains the dominance of the original front-gabled house. Furthermore, by siting the first floor above a ground floor element that projects forward to match the existing front extension the first floor addition responds logically to the existing layout, creating a balanced and unified front elevation. 7. This is a uniquely wide plot and sufficient gap would still be retained to the side boundary ensuring the development wouldn’t appear cramped. It is noted that the property opposite the appeal site, No. 2 is built in closer proximity to the side boundary with a large side facing dormer. In this context, the proposal would not appear unduly prominent. This reflects the guidance within the Sustainable Design and Construction SPD (2020) which states extensions should be in harmony with the design, character and layout of the property and surrounding area. 8. The design would incorporate a side facing gable and includes a large window at first floor level to break up the brickwork and provide visual interest on this corner plot. There are examples of similar extensions in the street scene, most notably at No 5 Kinross Close ensuring that the extension would fit comfortably within the locality and not appear incongruous. The extension would also sit more comfortably next to the original property than the existing extension which mimics the original design and appears awkward due to the significant setback. 9. The proposed extension would maintain the character and appearance of the area and would therefore accord with Policy BE3 of the Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Plan Review 2021-2039. Amongst other matters, this policy requires new developments to contribute to local distinctiveness and character by reflecting the positive attributes of the neighbouring area and respecting the sensitivity to change of the generic character types within each urban character area. Other Matters 10. Concerns have been raised that the extension encroaches into land outside the appellants ownership. However, certificate A has been completed on the application form indicating that the appellant is the sole owner of the appeal site. Without the provision of any evidence to the contrary, this appeal has been assessed on the basis that the appeal site is entirely within the ownership of the appellant. Conditions 11. In addition to the standard time condition, I have imposed a condition requiring that the development is carried out following the approved plans, for the avoidance of Appeal Decision 6008554 3 doubt. A matching materials condition is required to ensure that the character and appearance of the area is maintained. Conclusion 12. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposal would be in accordance with the development plan and there are no material considerations that indicate that the development should be determined otherwise than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal is allowed. Andrew Fulford INSPECTOR