Appeal 6001428

Appeal A: the appeal is dismissed.

Appeal B: the appeal is dismissed.

26 and [address] are grade II listed buildings within the Cotham and Redland Conservation Area. As required by Sections 16(2), 66(1), and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) special regard has been paid to the desirability of preserving a listed building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses, and of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area.

As set out above, there are two appeals on the same site, one seeking planning permission and the other listed building consent. Each appeal has been treated on its individual merits, although to avoid duplication they have been dealt with together, except where otherwise indicated.

The descriptions of the works set out above are taken from the original application form, although it is clear from the plans and accompanying details that the development comprises an extension, a balcony and external staircase, and an air source heat pump. The Council dealt with the proposal on this basis and the appeals will be considered in the same way. Appeals Decision 6001427 & 6001428

During the appeal process the appellant submitted an amended scheme depicting a revised balcony and staircase. The differences between the revised scheme for the appeals and that determined by the Council are a shorter balcony, relocated staircase and a privacy screen. The nature of these differences is such that no parties would be prejudiced by their consideration. Consequently, the revised scheme included with the appeals will be considered as well as that refused by the Council.

It was apparent from the site inspection that internal and external works were underway to the lower ground floor. The submitted drawings for the appeals have been annotated with notes explaining works to both the lower ground floor and the ground floor that have been consented under application references 23/00373/H and 23/00374/LA. For the avoidance of doubt the appeals have been considered on the basis that these works have the benefit of planning permission and listed building consent as stated on the submitted drawings.

The main issues are: - for both appeals, whether the works would preserve a listed building, its setting, or any features of special architectural or historic interest it possesses, and linked to that whether they would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area; and - in addition, for Appeal A, the effect of the scheme upon the living conditions of neighbouring residents, with particular regard to outlook, privacy, and noise disturbance.

Positioned upon a hillside in a mostly residential area, [site address] (No 26) is one half of a pair of semi-detached houses. To the rear of the house is a garden enclosed by mostly rubble stone walls of varying heights.

No 26 is within the Cotham and Redland Conservation Area. As identified in the [name] and [name] (2011) for the conservation area, it is characterised by its high quality, planned Victorian townscape. This is evident along [address] to either side of which there are long rows of impressively grand, high-status detached and semi-detached homes. These houses are set back behind similar sized front gardens, and this creates strong building lines to either side of the road. The resultant linear enclosure of the street scene is enhanced by the similarity of the large sizes and tall heights of these buildings. These features, along with the repeated styles and materials palettes of the houses, with many of the semi-detached housing having a deliberate symmetry, are distinct elements of the significance of the conservation area. [address] the large sizes of the houses, their age, and their considered execution, contribute to the planned, high quality historic cohesive character and appearance of the conservation area.

[name] 26 and [address] (No 28) are grade II listed buildings. Constructed in the 1840s, these houses form a symmetrical pair of Italianate styled homes. They are large and imposing, having a double-plan depth and impressive Appeals Decision 6001427 & 6001428 front facades of ashlar stone, banded rustication on the ground floor, and mannered window placements. Both houses have side elevation extensions which have replicated the front elevation detailing. The grand public facades of these houses contrast strongly with the plain, unadorned forms of the rendered flank and rear walls, albeit to the rear of these houses there is also a symmetry of void placements. The imposing nature of these homes, their high quality forms and detailing, along with the deliberate distinction between their public and private elevations, are all part of the special architectural and historic special interest of these listed buildings, and they thereby make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the conservation area.

[name]. The considered symmetry of No 26 and No 28 remains dominant despite the differences in sizes and positions of their side extensions. This is in part due to the continuation of the style and materials within the extensions, but also because they have retained a legible subservience to their hosts. The set back of both extensions from the front elevation, including the set back of the second floor of No 26, has retained the symmetrical primacy of the core of the building.

Although the bathroom extension would be of a modest size and would retain some second floor set back, the proximity of the extension to the front façade would erode the existing subservience of the wing, including through the resultant loss of the cornice and part of the top of the corner pilaster. The works would increase the prominence of the extension, thereby detracting from the deliberate symmetry of the core of this semi-detached pair and the contribution they make to the significance of the conservation area.

This impact would be compounded because of the proximity of the extension to [address] (No 24). The extension would further narrow the gap between these two houses, and this along with the deep eaves of No 24, would exaggerate the cramped relationship that exists between these buildings, particularly as views of the sky would be reduced. Furthermore, this juxtaposition would be evident from beyond the junction of [address] with [address], and the loss of separation would be at odds with the planned positioning of these houses that characterises the conservation area.

It is evident that there have been extensions and alterations to No 26 and No 28, including historic ones. Nevertheless, No 26 forms part of the long row of houses to the southern side of [address] whereby it is the harmony that results from the repeated heights, sizes, and styled symmetry of numerous pairs of imposingly elegant houses that forms a key element to the character and appearance of the conservation area. Despite the modest size of the extension, its elevation and position would disrupt the cohesion of the listed pair of buildings, eroding their special interest and the positive contribution they make to the conservation area.

[name]. The rear of the listed pair of houses has a plain, functional appearance, and from the ground floor and above both have symmetrical and replicated window sizes, styles, and placement. This balanced utilitarian appearance is part of the special interest of these listed buildings and also contributes to the significance of the conservation area because of the contrast between the public and private facades. Appeals Decision 6001427 & 6001428

The ground floor rooms of No 26 comprise principal rooms as denoted by their size, large windows, and the presence of luxurious decorative detailing that includes ornate cornices, ceiling roses, and elegant fireplaces. The proposed door would provide access onto a balcony from the kitchen, with the sash window being incorporated into a door. Although this window is a modern replacement, the historic timber architraves and shutters appear to be present and there is also timber panelling under the window. What has not been demonstrated is how the window would be changed into and function as a door, nor what level of historic fabric, if any, would be lost by the works. Given this, what impact these works would have on the special architectural interest of the listed building has not been established.

The balcony and spiral staircase would straddle much of the width of the house, thereby forming a conspicuous addition to the building that would disrupt the plain, unadorned nature of the rear elevations of this pair of houses. Whilst the appellant considers the works would be reversible, how this would be the case and how much historic fabric would be lost through the works has not been demonstrated. Rather than provide visual interest, the size and position of the balcony and staircase would be an incongruous addition to the listed building that would draw the eye due to its visual division of the rear elevation, as well as being at odds with its unembellished form and also that of the adjoining house. Such incongruity would be to the detriment of the special interest of the listed building and to the setting of No 28, as well as eroding the character and appearance of the conservation area.

There is evidence of alterations that have occurred to both houses, including No 28’s recently constructed single storey flat roofed rear extension. However, this extension is at the lower ground floor level, and has a simple, compact form that does not overly disrupt the restrained symmetry of the rear elevations of these listed buildings.

There appears to have been a metal staircase present on the rear elevation in the early 2000s, and there have been previous consents for doorways and associated staircases. Nevertheless, neither the 1998 scheme (application references 98/02940/H and 98/02941/LA) nor for that of 2005 (ref 05/01787/LA) were implemented. From the evidence provided by the appellant, these schemes were for smaller balconies than proposed, with the 2005 works being considerably more compact and positioned to one side of the house. Given these differences and that the consents and permissions have expired, the weight that can be attributed to such comparisons is limited.

The appellant has referred to other houses with balconies, citing those at 14, 21, 54, and [address]. However, none of these examples correspond in scale and size to the appeals scheme, whilst those at 54 and [address] form a matching pair set back within a recessed section of the elevation. Consequently, these comparisons have not been decisive in supporting the appeals.

The revised scheme for the appeals proposes a smaller balcony with a revised balustrade design, thereby allowing more of the rear elevation to remain evident. Irrespective of this, the centralised positioning of the works and the privacy screen would incongruously detract from the unadorned simplicity of the rear elevations of these listed buildings, and the matter of the loss of historic fabric also remains unresolved. Appeals Decision 6001427 & 6001428

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) requires that when considering the impact of development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to its conservation. For the reasons given above the works would have a harmful impact upon the special interest of the listed building, upon the setting of the adjoining listed building, and upon the character and appearance of the conservation area. These harms would be less than substantial, albeit at the lower end of the category, as the works would affect only parts of the building, the setting of the neighbouring house, and the conservation area. Nevertheless, these harms would be considerable given that the Framework attributes great weight to an asset’s conservation, and they must be weighed against the public benefits of the scheme, including the optimum viable use of the building. The provision of a larger bathroom and garden access from the ground floor would be personal benefits for the appellant and their family rather than public ones, and the continued viable use of the building would not be dependent on the works as it has an ongoing residential use.

For these reasons, the works would result in harm to the special architectural and historic interest of the listed building, would adversely affect the setting of the adjoining listed building, and would neither preserve nor enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area. These harms would be contrary to the Act, and to the requirements of Policies BCS21 and BCS22 of the [name] (2011) (CS), and Policies DM26, DM27, DM30, and DM31 of the Bristol Local Plan Site Allocations and Development Management Policies (2014) (LP). The works would conflict with these policies as they require, amongst other things, high quality design that contributes positively to an area’s character and identity and reinforces local distinctiveness, with extensions and alterations to buildings reflecting the character and design of the host. Development is also expected to safeguard or enhance heritage assets, and alterations and extensions to listed buildings should have no adverse impact on their settings and special interest, whilst within conservation areas development will be expected to preserve or where appropriate enhance, its special character and appearance.

No 24 has been converted to flats and there is a dormer window in the roof of this building. The proximity of this dormer to No 26 would result in the occupiers of the flat having an outlook onto the existing bathroom wall with oblique views of the sky in a northerly direction. Whilst the extension would continue the vertical line of the flank wall and be no higher than the existing ridge, whatever the use of this room within No 24 is, the extension would further reduce the oblique views of the sky that would be available to occupiers of the neighbouring flat. The outlook from this dormer window would be dominated by walling.

As regards the impact of the balcony upon the living conditions of neighbouring residents, the proximity and repeated front and rear building lines of these tall houses results in a degree of mutual overlooking. From the rear windows of No 26 at ground level and above there are views into the gardens of the properties to either side. In addition, from the garden of No 26 there are views into the windows of the neighbouring houses, particularly so in the case of No 28 with rooms that are above ground level.

As the balcony would stretch across much of the rear elevation of No 26 its users would have elevated and close views into the gardens of both the neighbouring Appeals Decision 6001427 & 6001428 properties. Whilst the depth of the balcony would prevent much of its use for outdoor seating, it would extend close to the shared boundary with No 28. This part of the balcony would not be used for access and so could provide an opportunity for seating with the consequential impact of elevated and unobstructed overlooking into the garden of the neighbouring property. Unlike views from windows, such overlooking would be conspicuously apparent and intrusive to those within the neighbouring property. Even with the presence of No 28’s rear extension and pergola, the balcony would result in an unacceptable loss of privacy for the occupiers of this property.

Users of the balcony would also have views into the garden of No 24, albeit the functional roll of this part of the balcony and staircase would prevent opportunities for seating. This, along with the separation that exists because of the two side access passageways would serve to mitigate the impact of the overlooking.

The truncation of the balcony and repositioning of the staircase with the revised scheme would serve to ameliorate some of the overlooking impacts upon the occupiers of No 28. Notwithstanding this and the privacy screen, there would still be an opportunity for the balcony to be used for seating with the consequential harm to the living conditions of the neighbouring residents.

The air source heat pump (ASHP) would be positioned in the rear garden near to the boundary wall. A brochure for ASHPs has been provided although it has not been specified which model would be used with the appellant relying on such details being secured through a condition. The Framework makes it clear that conditions should be kept to a minimum and that those which are imposed are precise and reasonable. A specific ASHP has not been identified nor has any assessment of the noise disturbance it would make been provided. Given the proximity of the unit to neighbouring homes in the absence of such detail the impact upon neighbouring residents cannot be ascertained with any certainty, and it cannot be assumed that a condition would mitigate noise nuisance and disturbance.

The appellant has pointed out that if the house was not listed, under Part 14 Class G of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, ASHPs would be permitted development. Even if these rights were applicable, there are conditional requirements that must be met, which include minimising the effect of the ASHP on the amenity of the area. Irrespective of No 26 being a listed building, in the absence of the details referred to above, this condition would not be met.

The scheme would have an adverse impact upon the living conditions of nearby residents with regard to outlook, overlooking and noise disturbance, and the suggested conditions would not mitigate these harms. Such harms would result in conflict with [name] BSC21 and BCS23, and LP Policy DM35 as these seek, amongst other things, to safeguard the amenity of existing development, to avoid adversely impacting upon environmental amenity, and to provide an appropriate scheme of mitigation.

The Council has referred to a supplementary planning document in the decision notice for planning permission. A copy of this document has not been provided for Appeals Decision 6001427 & 6001428 the appeals, but as the scheme would conflict with policies in the CS and LP this matter has not been pursued with the parties.

The appellant has raised concerns regarding the Council’s handling of the applications, including taking a procedurally unreasonable approach. Such concerns fall to be pursued by other means separate from the planning merits of the appeals.

The scheme would fail to preserve a listed building and its special interest, nor would it preserve the setting of the adjoining listed house. There would also be harm to the character and appearance of the conservation area, and the living conditions of nearby residents would be unacceptably affected. Thus, for the reasons given above, and having considered all other matters raised, the appeals are dismissed.