Appeal 3293184

The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for the erection of first-floor side extension at [site address] , Keynsham, [postcode] , in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 21/05546/FUL, dated 15 October 2021, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: HN/129/01, HN/129/02, HN/129/03, HN/129/04, HN/129/05, HN/129/06, HN/129/07, HN/129/08, HN/129/09, HN/129/10, HN/129/11, HN/129/12 and HN/129/13.

No construction of the external walls of the development shall commence until a schedule of materials and finishes, and samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces, including roofs, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out only in accordance with the approved details.

The effect of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the existing building and the area, including the Keynsham Conservation Area.

The appeal site is within the Keynsham Conservation Area (KCA). The statutory duty set out in Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires special attention to be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a Conservation Area.

The KCA covers a large area that includes the densely developed historic core of the town and the open land associated with the [name]. The appeal site is within one of two roads that are similar in style and form the northern end of the KCA. Both look over the railway line and mainly comprise large semi-detached 19th century dwellings that retain original stone details including front facing bays and ashlar quoins.

These buildings are positive contributors to the character and appearance of the KCA and representative of the 19th century expansion of the town. However, the front elevations of the buildings on [address] and [address] are not prominent to view owing to the narrow widths of both roads and the substantial mature vegetation that occupies the spaces between the roads and the railway line. As such it is difficult to view either street scene from any distance to appreciate the overall layout or the relative spacing between buildings. Such views are only possible at a tight angle from the roads fronting the dwellings.

The appeal building has an imposing three storey scale and is dominated, along with its attached partner, by a pair of three storey front facing bays. The front entrances to both dwellings are set back within secondary elements to the sides. The appeal building has recently been extended to the side at the two lower levels. This has brought the building up to the side boundary, where it meets the substantial extension of the neighbouring dwelling to the extent that the two almost touch.

From a limited area to the front of the appeal building these extensions give the impression that the appeal building is attached to No. [address]. However, the front building line of the appeal building and this neighbour is staggered significantly. Thus, the buildings still retain their separate identity rather than forming something that would be typically recognised as a terrace.

The proposal would continue this form by extending the existing extension up. The extension would face towards the neighbour with a hipped roof, and the neighbouring dwelling would remain significantly forward of the extension, retaining the separate identity of the two dwellings. The prominent forward facing three storey bays of the semi-detached pair would continue to be the building’s most prominent features. Although it would be wide, the retention of the original quoin detail, which has been retained with the existing extension, would mark the corner of the original building in a clear manner. The fenestration would respond positively to the scale and proportion of existing openings, including those within the existing extension. Subject to an appropriately worded condition, a palette of carefully considered materials would ensure that the proposal does not appear out of place.

In terms of the wider KCA impact, the view of the extension would be restricted, owing to the limited way that the building can be viewed. On the approach to the site along [address] the hipped fronted bays of the appeal building and its attached partner, and the gable fronts of Nos. 5 and 6 would still clearly present themselves as semi-detached pairs. Extending the building in the manner proposed would have no impact on this view as it would be set back behind the front projection of the appeal dwelling. Thus, the appeal building would continue to be viewed as a semi-detached dwelling.

For these reasons the proposal would preserve the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and the positive contribution that it makes to the character and appearance of the KCA. It would thus accord with the requirements of the LBCA and paragraph 199 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), which states that great weight should be given to the conservation of heritage assets. It would accord with Policy CP6 of the Bath and [name] 2014 and Policies D1, D2, D3, D5 and HE1 of the Bath and North East Somerset Placemaking Plan 2017, which together seek to ensure that development proposals are designed to a high quality, well detailed and protect and conserve the historic environment.

I have had regard to the planning conditions suggested by the Council. I have considered them against the tests in the Framework and the advice in the Planning Practice Guidance. I have imposed a condition specifying the approved plans as this provides certainty. I have imposed a condition relating to materials to safeguard the character and appearance of the building and the area.

For the reasons above, the appeal should be allowed.