Appeal 3343702

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a two-storey side extension and rendering of the property in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 23/04227/HH, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans: PL01, PL02, PL03, PL04, PL05, PL06

The roof materials to be used in the construction of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.

The scheme proposes to render the external walls of the proposed extension and existing dwelling. The Council does not object to this element of the proposals, and I have no reason to disagree. Therefore, this matter has not been determinative.

The main issue is the effect on the character and appearance of the dwelling and area.

[address] is characterised by short terraces of mid-20th century homes. The appeal property sits at the end of a terrace of four dwellings, separated from the adjacent terrace of homes by a small side garden.

Supplementary Planning Document No.2, A Guide for [address] Alterations and Extensions (2005) (SPD) recommends that 1 metre is retained between the side elevation of an extension and the site boundary. This is to avoid a terracing effect.

The proposed two-storey side extension would span almost the full width of the appellant’s side garden. It would sit close to both the side boundary and a single storey side extension to No.[address]. Nonetheless, given that the adjacent extension is only single storey, an adequate separation would be retained at first floor level to allow these neighbouring dwellings to still be read as separate houses belonging to separate terraces. The proposed side extension therefore would not give rise to a terracing effect.

The proposed extension would not appear as subservient to the host dwelling as it would not be set down below the ridge line of the existing property or set back from the front elevation. However, the SPD advises that ‘it is often more suitable to continue the terrace building line and roof ridge height so that the extension becomes part of the terrace’ (page 11). As such, this modest elongation of the terrace would not undermine the overall character or appearance of the host dwelling, terrace or area.

In view of the above, I conclude that the proposal would respect the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area. Consequently, there would be no conflict with Bristol Development Framework Core Strategy Policy BCS21 (2011), Bristol Local Plan Site Allocations and Development Management Policies (2014) DM26 and DM30 and the SPD. Taken together these require house extensions to secure a high standard of design which respects the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and area.

I attach conditions in relation to timescales and setting out the approved plans to provide certainty. The Council has requested a condition requiring materials to match the existing building. However, the scheme proposes to render both the existing brick building and the extension. Therefore, I have attached a condition which requires only the roof materials of the extension to match those used in the existing building. This will safeguard the character and appearance of the host dwelling and area.

For the reasons given, the appeal is allowed.