Appeal 6001634

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for double storey side extension. Partial double storey rear extension and partial single storey rear extension at [site address] , Knowle, Bristol [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/13545/H, subject to the following conditions:

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

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing no’s: 4432.PL.01 [name] (Site Location Plan), 4432.PL.04 [name] ([name] and Elevations) and 4432.PL.02 [name] (Existing and Proposed Block Plan).

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: • the character and appearance of the area; and • the living conditions of occupiers of [address] (No 21), with particular regard to outlook.

The appeal property is part of a pair of semi-detached dwelling houses built of red brick with a shared hipped roof. The dwelling is set back from the highway beyond a front garden and driveway. To the rear there is a further lawned area and outbuilding. It is consistent with the development pattern on [address], which is characterised by semi-detached houses, with some short terraces. There is a mixed material palette in the area with some dwellings faced in brick and others with painted render. The dwellings sit within similarly sized generous plots, and the style of the appeal property is repeated throughout the street and wider area. There is a predominance of hipped roof forms which together with the regular gaps between the side elevations of the pairs and terraces allows for glimpses of the rear gardens beyond. These factors provide for a cohesive and spacious streetscape.

Due to its modest width, hipped roof set down from the main ridge and 1.0 metre set back from the front elevation, the side extension would have a subservient appearance in line with the guidance for side extensions in the Bristol City Council ‘A Guide for [address] Alterations and Extensions’ Supplementary Planning Document (2005) (SPD). Whilst close to the boundary with No 21, suitable spacing would be retained between the side extension and the side elevation of this neighbouring dwelling. Together with the subservient design and staggered building line between these properties these factors would ensure that there would be no terracing effect, and the extension would sit comfortably within the established pattern and grain of development.

Individual pairs or terraced blocks within the street are generally faced in similar materials. Whilst the painted render indicated on the drawings would differentiate the host dwelling from its attached counterpart, the materials proposed would acceptably assimilate amongst the mixed palette of the wider street scene.

The proposed development would have an acceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area. In that particular regard, it would comply with the requirements in Policy BCS21 of the Bristol Development Framework Core Strategy (2011) (CS) and Policies DM26, DM27 and DM30 of the Bristol Local Plan Site Allocations and Development Management Policies (2014) (SADMP) for development to contribute positively to an area’s character and identity, to create or reinforce local distinctiveness, to respect the local pattern and grain of development, for the height, scale and massing of development to be appropriate to the immediate context and for extensions to respect the overall design and character of the host building and broader street scene.

No 21 benefits from a spacious rear garden and a gap between the side elevation of this dwelling and the boundary with the appeal site. To the rear, there is an outbuilding positioned next to the shared boundary fence. I also observed on my site visit that this neighbouring dwelling has a canopy covering the area of the rear garden closest to its rear elevation. Whilst there is a parallel row of houses which back onto the garden, No 21 retains a generous outlook from its rear elevation.

The proposed development would extend past the rear elevation of the neighbouring property. Even so, the existing structures within the rear garden of No 21 would sufficiently obscure the proposed development at a ground floor level and thus prevent any significant change to outlook as a result. Having regard to the upper floor rear windows of No 21, the oblique line of sight and the generous aspect that would be retained over the interconnecting gardens would ensure that the development would not result in any detrimental sense of enclosure or oppressiveness, thereby meeting the guidance within the SPD.

I conclude, the proposed development would have an acceptable effect on the living conditions of occupiers of No 21, with particular regard to outlook. In that regard, it would comply with the requirements of Policy BCS21 of the CS and Policy DM30 of the SADMP to safeguard the amenity of neighbouring occupiers and create a high-quality environment for neighbouring and future occupiers.

The Council have suggested that the proposed development could prejudice the potential for development at the neighbouring property and that this would conflict with Policy DM27 of the SADMP. However, it is conjecture to say what may or may not happen at No 21. Any future application to extend No 21 would need to be considered on its own merits based on the site context at that time. Furthermore, there is nothing to suggest the proposal would prejudice all future development at No 21.

Other than the standard time limit condition, it is necessary to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans for the reason of certainty.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be allowed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed.