Appeal 3271152

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for demolition of existing dilapidated garage and outbuildings, construction of 1no new dwelling with parking and associated works and creation of vehicle access and driveway to form off street parking at [site address] , [name], Bristol [postcode] in accordance with the terms of application, Ref 20/05750/F, dated 30 November 2020, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

The description of development used in the heading and decision above has been taken from the application form. The Council’s Decision Notice and the Appeal Form both use a different description, but I have not been provided with confirmation that either of these amended descriptions have been agreed by both parties. Accordingly, I have taken the description from the original application form.

The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal property forms part of a pair of semi-detached dwellings located on [address]. The proposed dwelling would adjoin No [site address] (No 75) and occupy the space that is currently its side garden.

[address] is a high-density residential road, where properties are closely arranged with short set-backs from the highway and narrow rear gardens. There are a mix of detached, semi-detached and terrace units along the road, that maintain a relatively consistent building line, while gaps between them generally consist of narrow side passageways or driveways. Although the varied house types result in an assortment of built frontage widths, there is consistency between the properties in terms of their architectural form and detailing, with many incorporating similar roofs, materials and window openings.

The proposal would result in the creation of a terrace of three dwellings and one less pair of semi-detached units in the short sequence of 5 pairs on this part of the street. Although this would break the rhythm of that arrangement of dwellings, the proposal would not have a particularly discordant or uncommon appearance given that there are other instances along the road, where terrace dwellings are positioned next to semi-detached properties. Moreover, the proposal’s roof, window arrangement and finishing materials would be consistent with the host property, whilst also displaying no obvious deviation from the other terraces in the street, in terms of its massing and appearance.

The existing gap between the flank wall of No 75 and that of the neighbouring dwelling to the north (No [address] (No 77)) would be reduced by the proposed development. There is some dispute between the main parties regarding the dimension of this gap following the construction of the proposal. However, based on the submitted drawings, I found that it would be in the region of 1.5m between the respective flank walls. This intervening space would be appreciable when viewed from [address], while the respective hipped roofs of the proposal and No 77 would slope away from each other. As a consequence of this arrangement, there would be no obvious terracing effect between the proposal and No 77, whilst the prevailing pattern of spacing between properties in the area would not be substantially altered.

The Council has raised concerns that the proposed dwelling’s position close to the boundary with No 77 would result in a cramped form of development. However, the established pattern of development is one of high-density housing with modest spacing between buildings. In this regard, the proposal would be consistent with a large number of properties along the street which are located close to side boundaries with only narrow passageways between opposing flank walls. Accordingly, the proposal would not be out of place or incongruous in this setting.

I note that the proposal would marginally breach the Council’s guidance1 on separation distances between dwellings. Nonetheless, I have found that there would be an adequate space maintained from No 77 that would generally be in keeping with the prevailing pattern of spacing on [address].

Therefore, taking all the above into account, the proposal would not have an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. It would accord with Policies BSC20 and BSC21 of the Bristol Development Framework Core Strategy (March 2012) and Policies DM26, DM27 and DM30 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies (July 2014), which together, require proposals to respond to the local context and respect the prevailing pattern of development in terms of scale and character.

Local concerns have been raised regarding the loss of off-street parking facilities in an already congested area. The appeal proposal provides one off-street parking space along with provision for the parking of bicycles. The 1 Supplementary Planning Guidance 2 (2005) Council’s highways advisers have raised no objection to this provision, and I have no reason to come to a different view. It is also noted from the submitted drawing, that a parking space at the host property would be displaced as a result of the proposal. However, this could adequately be addressed by parking on the surrounding road network, where I saw no obvious signs of parking stress during my site visit, nor have I been presented with any compelling evidence to the contrary. Therefore, I have not seen anything which would lead me to conclude that the proposal would have a significant impact on parking and highway safety in the area.

I have imposed a standard condition relating to a time limit for the commencement of development. A schedule of plans condition is also included in the interest of certainty.

In order to ensure that refuse and recycling facilities are adequate and appropriately sited it is necessary that they are implemented prior to occupation and retained in accordance with the submitted drawings. This condition is necessary to ensure those facilities are acceptably stored and kept clear of the highway. I have also imposed a condition requiring that the bicycle parking facilities detailed on the submitted drawings are implemented before the occupation of the dwelling. This will ensure that alternative modes of transport such as bicycles can be effectively stored at the site.

For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

The development hereby permitted shall be built in accordance with the details contained in the planning application hereby approved and drawing numbers: 01 - site location plan; 02 - existing floor plans & elevations; 03A - proposed floor plans & elevations; 04 - existing & proposed street scenes; 05A - proposed site plan, cycle & bin stores; design & access statement; energy strategy; and sustainability statement.

No part of the development shall be occupied until the provision at the site of secure parking facilities for bicycles in accordance with drawing number 05A have been implemented. These facilities shall thereafter be kept available for the parking of bicycles in association with the development at all times.

No part of the development shall be occupied until the provision of a bin storage area and recycling facilities within the site in accordance with drawing number 05A have been implemented. These facilities shall be kept available for use in association with the development at all times. ***End of Schedule***