Appeal 3292057

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a new rear dormer window and reinstatement of chimney at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 21/03752/H, dated 7 July 2021, subject to the conditions set out in the attached Schedule to this decision.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property and, since the appeal property lies within the Shirehampton Conservation Area (CA), whether the character or appearance of the CA would be preserved or enhanced.

The appeal property forms part of a small terrace in a backland, tightly-knit setting, sandwiched between [address] and [address]. It has no vehicular access, but is reached on foot along paths linking it with [address] and [address] respectively. To the front is a lawned garden. Other than chimneys, the small terrace displays no apparent protrusions or alterations, other than the original roofing materials have been replaced with tiles.

The Council has not objected to the reinstatement of the chimney and I have no reason to either.

The dormer would be built in the rear roof of the dwelling facing the rear of the [address] dwellings. It would be gabled, triangular-shaped in elevation, with a broad base. I consider it to be appropriately designed for its terraced setting, and by reason of its overall shape, design and reasonably modest dimensions, it would not dominate the roof, and would sit acceptably in its visual context.

It would not be the only dormer seen within the appeal site’s immediate sphere of visual influence. Two larger dormers of a different type are seen in the [address] rear roofs. The Council point out that these lie marginally outside the CA’s boundary; nevertheless, they contribute towards the CA’s setting.

Dormers are also evident in the roofs of the small terrace of [address], which appear from the submitted documentation to be within the CA. Even if they were not, the dormers contribute to forming the CA’s character, and by reason of their close proximity to the appeal property, the proposed dormer would not look out of place.

Views of the proposed dormer, if built, would be limited to local householders, and none have objected. The impact on the public realm would be minimal, given the appeal site’s backland location.

I conclude that the dormer would not cause harm to the appearance of the host property. It would have, at worse, a neutral effect on the CA as a whole, thus preserving its character and appearance. Accordingly, no conflict arises with those provisions of policy BCS21 & BCS22 of the Bristol Development Framework Core Strategy (CS), and policies DM26, DM30 & DM31 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies (DMP), directed to promoting high quality urban design, protecting the City’s Heritage Assets, and that alterations to existing property should respect the siting, scale, form, proportions, details and the overall design and character of the host building.

In the interests of visual amenity, with a slight amendment to its wording, I shall impose the Council’s suggested condition in respect of external materials.

It is also necessary, in the interests of certainty that the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans.

All other matters referred to in the representations have been taken into consideration, including the Council’s concerns as to precedent. However, it appears to me that, as already explained, local precedents are already established. Nonetheless, I have dealt with this appeal on its specific merits, as required, and have found it unobjectionable.

No other matter raised is of such strength or significance as to outweigh the considerations that led me to my conclusions.