Appeal 3303207

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of single storey side extension to provide additional living accommodation and the creation of new access onto [address] at [site address] , Warmley, Bristol, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application Ref P22/02783/F, dated 17 May 2022, subject to the conditions set out in the attached Schedule to this decision.

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 semi-detached property standing virtually at the junction of [address] and [address]. The latter highway joins the former at an acute angle and the pair’s siting and orientation reflects this, so that their front elevations point directly towards the junction.

Thus, the appeal dwelling’s side elevation to which the proposed extension would be attached has more of a visual affinity with [address] than [address]. Indeed, the proposed extension would not be seen when approaching the junction from the north or south along the main [address].

The surrounding area is characterized by dwellings and extensions of varying design. [name] note the Council’s design concerns with regards to roof pitch, fenestration and eaves, to my mind, the proposed extension is of an acceptable, subservient design.

The extension would not be as prominently sited as the Council appears to suggest. The extension would be seen in the short distance when approaching from the adjacent junction but would not stand out since it would be set against the immediate background of the larger mass of the modern dwelling at [address]. When approaching from the south-west along [address] the extension would in my view, add visual interest to the dwelling’s rendered two-storey side elevation which appears bland and plain, punctuated only by two small windows and a door.

The Council’s concerns also relate to the extent of setback proposed from the front building line of the host property1. However, the failure to achieve the setback recommended in the guidance is by only 50mm or so. I do not regard this as significant or problematical in this instance.

I conclude that the proposed development would sit harmoniously in its visual and spatial contexts without harming the character and appearance of the host property or its surroundings. Accordingly, no conflict arises with those provisions of policies CS1 of the [site address] Local Plan: [name] (December 2013) and PSP38 of the [site address] Local Plan: Policies, Sites and Places Plan (November 2017) directed to promote and encourage high quality design generally, and specifically in residential extensions.

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.

The Council has not raised an objection to the proposed parking arrangements or the design of the proposed new access. I have no reason to object either. I note that no local resident or the Parish Council objected to the proposals.

All other matters referred to in the representations have been taken into consideration, but no other matter raised is of such strength or significance as to outweigh the considerations that led me to my conclusions.