Appeal 6001699

The appeal is dismissed.

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 description of development as detailed on the application form has been amended in subsequent documents. I have adopted the description used in the Council’s decision notice, which reflects accurately and concisely the proposal before me.

The main issues in this case are: • The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area. • The effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupants of [address] (no 43), with regard to overlooking and privacy.

The appeal site occupies a plot on the corner of [site address] and [address]. It is a predominantly residential area characterised mainly by single-storey bungalows, although a notable proportion of [site address] consists of two-storey dwellings, including dwellings adjoining the site to the west. There is evidence of small dormer additions on some nearby properties, contributing to modest variation Appeal Planning Officer 6001699 to the surrounding built form. The street scene features wide pavements accompanied by grass verges, contributing to a spacious and open suburban character. Properties are consistently set back from the highway, typically with front gardens or off-street parking areas.

[address] displays a similar pattern of development, though it lacks the grass verges found on [site address] and has a staggered building line. Overall, the locality has a pleasant, open quality, shaped by its generous plot layouts, building setbacks, and landscaped frontage areas.

The proposed side extension extends closer to the highway of [address] than the existing building. However, the existing street scene is characterised by a staggered building line and a gentle curvature in the road layout, resulting in a varied frontage rather than a uniformed building line. In this context, the additional projection would sit comfortably within the existing pattern of development and would not appear unduly prominent or discordant. Given these characteristics, the extension would not cause significant harm to the rhythm of the street or disrupt the established building line. The proposed side extension would therefore integrate acceptably within the prevailing character of the area.

The proposed development would increase the roof height across the whole building and would introduce a number of dormer windows. The property’s prominent corner location means the proposed development would be clearly visible from the public realm. The scale and number of the dormers combined with the increased height and width of the roof, would result in a roof form that appears disproportionate to the host building, significantly changing its original proportions and eroding its simple character. In this context, the cumulative massing of the proposed roof alterations would appear incongruous against the prevailing roofscape of the surrounding area, where dormer additions are generally modest in size and limited in number.

The Householder Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document ([name] 2021) (SPD) provides clear direction on the design of roof alterations, stating that dormers on principal or front elevations are generally unacceptable due to their prominent visual impact on the street scene. The guidance also advises that flat-roofed dormers should be avoided, as they rarely integrate successfully with the form and proportions of the host dwelling. The proposed development includes two dormers on the front elevation and incorporates flat-roofed forms, directly conflicting with these established design principles. As a result, the scheme fails to accord with the expectations of the SPD and would not represent a sympathetic or contextually appropriate form of roof alteration.

The scale and form of the alterations, particularly the increased roof height and dormer additions, would fail to respect the established pattern of development and wider character of the the area. Accordingly, the proposed development would conflict with Policy CS1 of the South Gloucestershire Local Plan: [name] ([name] 2013) (SGLP), Policies PSP1 and PSP38 of the South Gloucestershire Local Plan: Policies, Sites and Places Plan ([name] 2017), and the guidance contained within the SPD which together require development to achieve high-quality design that respects the existing patterns of development. Appeal Planning Officer 6001699

The host dwelling sits in very close proximity to no 43, with the two properties separated only by a narrow boundary. A lean-to structure currently abuts this boundary, creating a tight spatial relationship between the buildings. Both dwellings contain windows facing one another, resulting in an existing degree of mutual overlooking. In addition, the host property occupies a slightly higher ground level than No. 43, which further influences the way the two dwellings relate in terms of outlook and privacy.

The proposed rear-facing windows would introduce additional opportunities for overlooking towards no 43. While a degree of mutual overlooking already exists between the two properties, the new windows would, particularly those at first floor level, intensify this relationship and materially increase the perception of being overlooked. This would result in a harmful loss of privacy for the occupants of no 43. The appellant’s suggestion of using obscured glazing is acknowledged; however, this measure would not adequately address the issue. Even with obscured glass, the presence of additional windows in such close proximity would still create a clear sense of being observed, thereby failing to mitigate the impact on the living conditions of the neighbouring residents.

For the reasons outlined the proposed development would give rise to unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of no 43. The proposed development would conflict with Policy PSP8 and PSP38 of the SGLP and the guidance contained within the SPD which together seek, amongst other things, to ensure that developments safeguard the amenity of residents, and not prejudice the living conditions of neighbours. The proposal therefore fails to comply with the adopted development plan.

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

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