Appeal 3311487

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a loft conversion with rear dormer at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application Ref P22/03250/H, dated 28 June 2022, subject to the conditions set out in the attached Schedule to this decision.

The appeal property is located within the Bedminster Conservation Area (BCA). Accordingly, the main issue is whether the proposed development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the BCA.

[address] is a quiet cul-de-sac, and the appeal property forms part of a modest terrace facing [name]. In my view, the terrace’s front elevation, rather than the rear, make the most significant contribution to the BCA, not least because it is widely seen from the street outside and from the adjacent public park.

The applicant proposes to erect a rectangular box-like dormer in the rear elevation, which would occupy most of the roof’s rear plane. The Council’s SPD1 provides detailed guidance on the design of roof extensions and alterations, and in this case the Council considers the dormer to be at odds with the guidance. In its view, the dormer is too large and poorly designed and would have a dominating, harmful effect on the roof’s appearance and that of the terrace as a whole, which displays no similar structures.

The Council acknowledges that the proposed dormer, being designed with its roof below the host property’s ridge could not be seen from the front. However, the Council says that it would be seen from the side, from the short 1 A Guide for [address] Alterations and Extensions - Supplementary Planning Document Number 2 (2005) stretch of [address] linking to [address]. I agree that the dormer would be seen from limited vantage points along this short stretch; but views from most potential vantage points here are blocked by high walls and other structures.

Moreover, the most notable feature when looking in this direction from the limited vantage points available is the dominant angular side profile of the modern terrace erected just beyond and westwards of the appeal property. This is the main feature that would continue to catch the eye, together with the several box-like dormers erected in the rear roofs of the properties in [address]. I note the Council’s comments as to the possible provenance of these dormers, but they nevertheless exist, and contribute significantly towards forming local character. Some residents in [address] would see the proposed dormer from their rear windows and gardens, but it would not look out of place given the number seen generally on surrounding buildings.

Having regard to what I saw, the rear dormer would have little or no impact on the public realm or on the BCA as a whole. I therefore conclude that the proposed development would not harm the BCA, whose character and appearance would be preserved. Accordingly, no conflict arises with those provisions of policy BCS21 & BCS22 of the Bristol Development Framework Core Strategy (CS), and policy DM30 & DM31 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies (DMP), directed to protecting the city’s

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 proposed loft conversion also involves the insertion of rooflights in the front elevation, to which the Council has no objection. Little information is provided as to the design of the rooflights, so I shall impose a condition requiring the design to be agreed before installation. To my mind, conservation style rooflights would be best suited to this prominent front elevation roofscape. In this respect I noted that No 23 has modest rooflights whose frames did not protrude and were thus reasonably inconspicuous.

I have noted the references to other development plan policies but those to which I have referred are considered the most relevant having regard to the particular circumstances of the case.

All other matters raised in the representations have been considered but none outweigh those considerations that led me to my conclusions.