Appeal 6001546

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

The appeal property sits on the corner of [address] and [address]. The rear garden faces [address], which drops down in height from the corner, and the existing garage sits within the rear garden area.

There are visible outbuildings/garages opposite the appeal property on [address] and along the access lane running past the rear of the appeal property. These are generally garage structures set back from the highway.

These garages/outbuildings are, due to their modest scale and set back, clearly ancillary to the host dwellings, are limited in their visual impact and do not dominate the street scene. Whilst the corner dwellings fronting [address] extend up to the side boundary with [address], the general set back of most outbuildings/garages, in addition to the dwellings, results in an open spacious character to [address].

The existing garage on the appeal site is not set back from the highway and is not behind the boundary wall. Nevertheless, it is a fairly small, unobtrusive single garage structure. It is mostly finished in materials of muted grey colouring that matches the boundary wall and is generally discreet within the wider street scene.

The supplementary planning guidance document ‘A Guide for [address] Alterations and Extensions’ advises that generally, development will not normally be permitted where the proposal harms the appearance of the street scene or open nature of the area.

Whilst remaining single storey and of a scale that remains subservient and ancillary in appearance to the main two storey house, the proposed outbuilding would be conspicuously larger than the existing garage, including in height. Given its orientation, it would also present its side elevation to the highway, resulting in a greater massing facing the road. Its white render finish, incorporating two windows along the [address] boundary, would result in the outbuilding appearing far more prominent next to the grey boundary wall within the street scene than the existing garage.

Whilst the scale would be comparable to nearby garages, its siting directly next to the highway, in combination with its design would result in it having an incongruous visual impact that would dominate this part of the street scene. It would visually enclose and harm the established open character and appearance of this part of [address].

Whilst details of a more suitable colour could be secured by condition, this would not address the issue of the scale and siting of the outbuilding.

I have little details of other outbuildings within nearby street scenes including buildings of a similar or even larger scale, such as the policy contexts that any approval was made, which prevents direct comparison. However, from what I observed, given their siting, none have a comparable visual effect as the proposal before me, such as the example set back behind a boundary wall/gates on [address].

I therefore conclude that the proposal would therefore harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The proposal would conflict with Policy BCS21 of the Bristol City Council Core Strategy (2011) and Policies DM26, DM27 and DM30 of the Bristol Local Plan: Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Local Plan (2014), which collectively set out that development should be appropriate to the immediate context and should not result in harm to the character and appearance of an area.

Whilst no letters of objection have been received, this does not weigh in favour of the proposal. Any environmental improvement to the street is not substantiated, and would be in any case, given the scale of development, minor. Consequently, any benefit in this regard does not outweigh the harm identified to the street scene, which is a matter to which I attribute great importance, in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole and there are no material considerations which indicate that the proposal should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan. For the above reasons, the appeal is dismissed.