Two storey side and rear extension, and a single storey side and rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 17 June 2026 by Chris Couper BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 22 June 2026 Appeal Ref: 6010402 31 Turner Road, Coventry CV5 8FS • 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 Mrs Rekha Clay against the decision of Coventry City Council. • The application Ref is PL/2026/0000211/HHA. • The development proposed is a two storey side and rear extension, and a single storey side and rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host property and the area. Reasons 3. Turner Road comprises a number of two storey terraces, typically terminating with hipped roofs, which are finished in a palette of brick, render and pebble dash. The host sits at the end of one such terrace, on a particularly large, wedge-shaped plot, at the head of the cul-de-sac. It has a single storey extension to the rear and side, which would be demolished as part of this scheme. 4. Having regard to the block plan, the proposal would roughly double the original building’s footprint. The two storey extension would wrap around the rear and side of the building, giving it a rather elongated side face. Whilst it would be lower than the original building, it would have a considerable bulk and mass; and its section of flat roof, whilst generally concealed from public vantage points, would contribute to its squat and disproportioned appearance. Consequently, it would jar with the host’s form, including its hipped roof. Notwithstanding the use of matching materials, the scheme would fail to integrate with the host, and it would appear visually separate to it. 5. Given the siting of the proposed extensions relative to the host and to 33 Turner Road, they would have little if any impact on the streetscene. However, viewed from the host’s rear garden, I did not observe any properties in this terrace or others nearby with a similar two storey extension. The scheme would therefore significantly disrupt the rhythm and harmony of these buildings looking along their cohesive rear faces from nearby gardens, and from the opposing properties on Oldfield Road. Appeal Decision: 6010402 2 6. Amongst other things, Policy DE1 of the Coventry Local Plan 2017 (‘CLP’) requires high quality design, which respects and enhances its surroundings by responding to its context, and by considering local distinctiveness and the identity of the site. CLP Policy H5 states that the existing housing stock will be renovated and improved in association with the enhancement of the surrounding residential environment. For the above reasons, the scheme would conflict with those policies, and with the stance at paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework to ensure that development is visually attractive and sympathetic to local character. 7. Neither would it comply with the advice in the Coventry Householder Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document that extensions shall usually respect the form, scale and architectural style of the original building, and shall pay careful attention to the character of the area. 8. The scheme would conflict with the development plan, and material considerations, including the Framework, do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. For these reasons, and having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is dismissed. Chris Couper INSPECTOR