Appeal 3292889

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of single storey side/front extension with other roof alterations and a single storey and two storey side and front extension to form additional living accommodation at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application Ref P21/07421/F, dated 12 November 2021, subject to the conditions set out in the attached Schedule to this decision.

The description of the proposed development was amended during the course of the determination. In the interests of clarity, I have utilised that used by the Council in its decision notice.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property and its surroundings.

The appeal property is a detached dwelling standing in a large garden at the junction of [address] and [address]. The dwelling has been extended and altered before, but as the appellant suggests it ‘has no clear distinctive architectural composition’. The appellant’s view is that the proposals, taken as a whole, are proportionate and enhance the architectural composition of the host property.

The Council disagrees. It considers the proposed extensions would appear visually dominant, poorly proportioned and would represent an overdevelopment on a prominent corner site. It regards the proposal as badly designed, unreflective of the host property’s inherent characteristics.

There are two main elements to the scheme. The first, at the southern end of the property, towards the boundary shared with [address], involves the incorporation of the existing structure as habitable accommodation, and a small extension in terms of the increased footprint. A shallow pitched roof would replace the flat roof currently on display. I find this part of the proposals, in itself, to be unobjectionable.

The proposals at the other end of the dwelling are more extensive. As the Council suggests, in effect they involve the creation of another wing to the house, wrapping around at the front, and introducing a largely glazed, gabled front entrance extending to two floors. At the rear, another largely glazed gabled feature would be introduced.

I share the Council’s view that taken as a whole, the extensions represent sizeable additions. However, to my mind, their design, regardless of scale, would in my view improve and enhance the overall appearance of the dwelling. The introduction of an imposing front entrance would add visual interest and the finished product would appear more unified and balanced than the existing, when viewed both from the front and rear.

Given the generously sized gardens to the front, back and side, the extensions would be easily assimilated. Substantial areas of garden would remain, irrespective of the extensions. The plot, given its’ large size, is more than capable of accommodating the proposals without giving rise to any obvious symptoms of overdevelopment.

The main frontage is well landscaped with trees and other vegetation, including evergreens. Accordingly, even in early spring prior to re-foliation when my visit took place, a well-formed screen is apparent. The submitted photographs show the scene in summer, when other, deciduous trees are in full leaf. The extended house, which is set well back from the road, would barely be apparent through the screening present for most of the year in views from [address].

The extended rear elevation would be more apparent when viewed from [address] when approaching from the open countryside to the west. However, it would be seen in the context of the rears of other dwellings fronting the [address]. Moreover, where [address] joins the [address] the dominating feature is the [name] opposite, comprised of a substantial angular structure which effectively dwarfs all other buildings in its vicinity. In this visual and spatial context, the appellant’s proposals would sit satisfactorily and acceptably, and would go relatively unnoticed in comparison.

I conclude that the proposed development would fit harmoniously into its environs, enhancing the character and appearance of the host property and its surroundings. Accordingly, no conflict arises with those provisions of policies CS1 of the South Gloucestershire Local Plan: [name] (December 2013) and PSP38 of the South Gloucestershire Local Plan: Policies, Sites and Places Plan (November 2017) directed to promote and encourage high quality design generally, and specifically in residential extensions. 2

In the interests of visual amenity, 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 reference to the Green Belt (GB). I am satisfied however that the site, which lies outside the boundaries of the GB, is not subject to the strict policies of restraint applying in such designated areas.

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