Appeal 6002350

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a two-storey side extension at [site address] , Yate [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref P25/01668/HH, 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 01 (site location plan) and the revised versions of drawing Nos: 02 (proposed block plan), 06 (proposed elevations), and 05 (proposed floor plan) which show the two-storey side extension with consistent dimensions ‘at only 50% of width’ relative to the host dwelling, with corresponding measurements to the front and rear elevations of the extension at 3070mm width and with the depth of the side elevation of the extension at 7750mm.

The external materials of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used on the existing dwelling.

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.

From the evidence before me, it seems that the appellant sought to reduce the width of the extension during the planning application. This resulted in a revised elevations drawing being provided. However, that drawing included discrepancies, most notably, the width of the front elevation (identified as being of 50% width in relation to the host dwelling) did not match the width of the rear elevation which was shown to be wider. The Council has confirmed that is the drawing it determined the application on.

As part of the appeal, the appellant has provided drawings which rectify this error, showing corresponding front and rear elevations (at ‘50% of width’ relative to the host dwelling) and an accompanying floor plan (the corrected drawings). These drawings also correspond with the width of the extension depicted on the ‘revised block plan’ upon which the Council made its decision. Therefore, given that the Council was aware of the ‘50% width’ proposal and some of the plans it determined the application on showed this scenario, no party would be prejudiced by me assessing the appeal on the basis of the corrected drawings.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: • the character and appearance of the area; • the living conditions of the occupiers of [address], having particular regard to outlook and light; and • the highway, with particular reference to parking provision.

[address] forms part of a circular estate, in the middle of which is a park. The area is overwhelmingly residential in character, with a level of greenery due to the park and the trees and shrubbery in both front and back gardens. There are dwellings on either side of the road; these are primarily semi-detached pairs with some detached properties. The appeal dwelling reflects this character, it being a two-storey, semi-detached dwelling house. As is common in the area, it has a side gable, although there are also some examples of pairs in which one half is gable-fronted, such as the semi-detached pair neighbouring the appeal site. Many of the dwellings along [address] have been extended. These extensions vary in scale and form but generally appear subservient to their hosts. Overall, these factors make for an orderly and cohesive street scene.

As it would be no more than half the width of the host dwelling, would be set back from the principal elevation, and would be set down from the ridge of the existing roofline, the extension would appear as a subservient addition. The render indicated on the application form would further harmonise the extension and a condition could secure that it would match the existing external materials. Consequently, the proposed development is of a complimentary design which would also suitably adhere to the guidance for side extensions in [site address] Council Supplementary Planning Document: [name] (2021) (SPD) also assimilating well within the surrounding built environment.

Overall, the proposed development would have an acceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area. In that regard, it would comply with the requirements, of Policies PSP1 and PSP38 of the [site address] Local Plan: Policies, Sites and Places Plan (2017) (LP) and Policy CS1 of the [site address] Local Plan: [name] 2006-2027 (2013) which require the highest possible standards of design, for extensions to amongst other things respect the building line, form, scale, proportions and architectural style and external materials, by virtue of its subservient scale and sympathetic design and for development to demonstrate an understanding of, and respond constructively to the buildings and characteristics that make a particularly positive contribution to the distinctiveness of the locality.

The circular nature of [address] means that both the appeal site and No 49 are situated on splayed plots which narrow at the front. The front of the two properties are thus positioned closer together than the rear of the properties. No 49 has an existing single storey side extension with front and flank windows and skylights. It is set slightly further back from the highway than the appeal property and the properties are separated by a boundary fence. Consequently, outlook and levels of light experienced from the nearest side windows of No 49 are currently overwhelmingly influenced by the close proximity of the fence.

The proposed two-storey side extension would bring the side elevation of the appeal dwelling closer to the boundary with No 49. Even so, a space of approximately one metre would be retained between the proposed development and the boundary fence. This would combine with the space to No 49’s side of the fence to ensure that an acceptable outlook would be retained to the nearest side windows at No 49, particularly in the context of the existing situation at this neighbouring property. There is also no detailed evidence to suggest that there would be a material reduction in the amount of daylight and sunlight received by the nearest side windows in the context of their existing proximity to the boundary fence. The intervening distance and relative angles between all other windows and the main external areas at No 49 would further ensure acceptable living conditions would be retained for occupiers of this neighbouring dwelling.

Therefore, the proposed development would have acceptable effect on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers of [address], having particular regard to outlook and light. In that regard, it would comply with Policies PSP8 and PSP38 of the LP insofar as they require development not to prejudice the amenities of neighbours and to not create unacceptable living conditions including in terms of any loss of light or overbearing and dominant impact. For the same reasons it would meet the guidance within the SPD regarding outlook, daylight and sunlight.

Policy PSP16 of the LP states that in new residential development, three and four-bedroomed dwellings are required to have a minimum of two parking spaces. This requirement also reflects [site address] Residential Parking Standards Supplementary Planning Document (2013). The supporting text to Policy PSP16 indicates that an external parking space is typically 2.4 x 4.8m in size, although the policy doesn’t prescribe minimum dimensions.

Whilst the dimensions of the proposed parking spaces are not clear on the plans, I observed on my site visit that the site frontage is laid out for use for off-street parking and that there would be sufficient space for two average sized cars to be parked with the proposed development in place. Consequently, the minimum parking requirements of the LP would be met even if the dimensions were to fall slightly short of the typical dimensions referenced above.

Furthermore, I observed on my site visit that there are no restrictions regarding on-street parking along [address]. There is no evidence before me to suggest that there are particularly high levels of parking stress in the area or that any overspill parking associated with the appeal site would be likely to cause any significant inconvenience or safety issues for other highway users on [address].

For the reasons set out, the proposed development would have an acceptable effect on the highway, having particular regard to parking provision. In that regard it would comply with the minimum parking requirements of Policy PSP16 of the LP.

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. As the corrected drawings have the same drawing reference number as the drawings that they supersede, it is necessary to explicitly state the dimensions of the approved extension in order to provide precision and certainty in respect of the drawings approved. In the interests of protecting the character and appearance of the area, a condition requiring matching materials is also necessary.

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.