Appeal 3351522

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a two-storey extension at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 24/01457/H subject to the conditions set out in the attached Schedule to this decision.

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

The appeal property is a detached dwelling set in a generously sized plot at the junction of [address] and the busy, dualled [address] (A4018). The property’s frontages to these highways are lined with trees and other vegetation, so that the dwelling is very well screened from general view. The detached houses either side of the appeal property on the [address] frontage and behind in [address] are of varying designs. This strikes me as a residential area of good quality disrupted only by the sounds of heavy traffic.

The Council acknowledges that in certain circumstances, detached dwellings can acceptably accommodate large extensions, such as proposed. However here it considers the extension unacceptable since it would be large, set forward of the dwelling’s front elevation, and that of other development along this part of the [address] frontage. It would therefore, in the Council’s view, deleteriously affect the character of the host property and would appear incongruous and prominent in the street detracting from ‘the urban grain of the area’.

Whilst forward of the build line, reasonably sized spaces would remain between the extension and the streets either side. I consider the extension to be well designed and proportionate taking account of the scale and appearance of the host property and surrounding development, and not of an excessive size.

Moreover, far from being prominent, the extension would be very well screened from general view by trees and vegetation. I note the Council’s concern that insufficient information has been submitted to satisfy it as to the future health of the trees. The appellant has not produced any fresh information on trees for the appeal, but it appeared to me that sufficient space was available to the side and front of the dwelling to ensure the longevity of the trees. A suitably worded condition to protect the trees during the construction period would assist in this respect, and to require replacement in the event of any being severely damaged or felled.

I therefore conclude that the proposed development would sit acceptably 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 policy BCS21 of the Bristol Development Framework Core Strategy (CS), and policy DM26 & DM30 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies (DMP), directed to protect an area’s distinctiveness with particular reference to building extensions.

Despite the response to the contrary in the Council’s questionnaire response I consider that other conditions are necessary in addition to the statutory time-limiting condition.

In the interests of visual amenity, I shall impose a 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.

In the interests of visual amenity, a condition is imposed to protect the site’s trees during the construction period and to require replanting in the event of any trees being seriously damaged or felled during construction.

The objections raised by a neighbour have been considered and I have already dealt with one aspect. For the same reasons as the Council, I do not consider that any neighbouring property’s living conditions would be impaired. There could be some local disruption during the construction period, but his would be temporary and insufficient reason to prevent what is otherwise an acceptable development.

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