Appeal 6003025

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the existing terrace and surrounding area.

The appeal site comprises an existing end of terrace dwelling at the turning head of a residential cul-de-sac. It benefits from a wider plot which has been used to house a detached garage of functional design, alongside a small area of hardstanding. The terrace contains three, two storey houses, dating from the Victorian era with stone elevations complemented by brick detailing. Rooves are pitched with chimney stacks notably positioned midway up the front pitch. Each dwelling has a lean to front porch and small front garden which cumulatively provide an attractive setting to the terrace.

The cul-de-sac and remainder of [address] feature semi-detached and terraced housing typical of post war construction. These properties are simple in form and uniformly finished in spar render. Several have been extended in various ways and many of the front gardens have been removed to provide off-road parking. Two modern detached dwellings are positioned towards the junction with [address]. As such, the Victorian terrace is the only one of its type within the street scene and provides a positive visual focal point at the highest ground level of the cul-de-sac.

The appeal proposes a two-storey dwelling to be added to the terrace. The front gardens of [site address] and the new dwelling would be surfaced to provide off-road parking. Whilst some design elements of the existing terrace have been reflected, the overall proportions and design of the addition would be out of keeping. The proposed dwelling would have a greater width than the other dwellings in the terrace, with a wider porch and significantly more windows to the front elevation. The greater width and additional fenestration would cause the proposed dwelling to visually dominate the terrace giving an unbalanced appearance to the detriment of the original character. The absence of a chimney stack would undermine the rhythm of the roof-scape and the insertion of three roof light windows would further add to the visual clutter.

The appellant refers to the proposal as being a ‘bookend’ dwelling, however the historical reference is not evidenced as being applicable in this location, and the details of such an approach are not fully demonstrated. The provided examples of extensions to existing dwellings within the street scene are a mix of sizes and styles but all contain an element of subservience to the original character. None are directly comparable and neither do they provide a precedent for the visual harm which would result from the proposed development.

It is also suggested that a two-storey side extension and creation of hardstanding to the front garden of [site address] could be constructed as permitted development. I have no details of such a scheme before me and therefore a full and detailed comparison with this case cannot be made. Further, there is no evidence that there would be a real prospect that such development would be pursued and as such, the suggestion does not materially affect the consideration of the planning merits of the appeal scheme.

References to the untidy nature of this part of the cul-de-sac were not evidenced during my site visit. Whilst the existing garage may not represent high quality design, it is not so bad so as to justify the harmful impact of the proposed dwelling.

The proposed dwelling would be harmful to the character and appearance of the existing terrace and surrounding area. For the above reasons, the magnitude of harm would be significant in this context. It is therefore contrary to Policy BSC21 of the Bristol Development Framework: [name] (2011) and Policies DM21, DM26, DM27 and DM29 of Bristol Local Plan: Site Allocations and Development Management Policies (2014) which seek to raise design quality to a high standard for all new development, with specific focus on contributing positively to local distinctiveness and not undermining existing character. Furthermore, the proposed development would be contrary to the approach to achieving good design as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

The application states that the proposed development would be self-build in nature which is supported in principle by the NPPF and therefore attracts weight in support of the scheme. The appellant commits to the first 3 years occupation as a minimum but doesn’t address how the self-build status or occupation would be secured. It is not referenced in the description of development. The Council set out that a planning condition could be attached to any grant of consent however no suggested wording has been provided to ensure compliance with the necessary tests. In the absence of a confirmed mechanism of securing the self-build status, the weight attributed is limited.

The subdivision of the existing residential plot would represent an efficient use of land. Public transport services, local shops and facilities would be within a walkable distance so that there would be a genuine choice of transport modes for typical daily needs. The proposed development would provide one dwelling towards the local housing supply. The NPPF notes the positive contribution that small sites can make, however one dwelling would make a minor contribution which is therefore afforded limited weight in the balance.

There would be short term economic benefits during the construction period and ongoing social and economic benefits upon occupation, arising from the use of local services and facilities. The scale of such benefits associated with one dwelling would also be limited.

Additional benefits of the development have been presented as removing parking from the road, the creation of formalised refuse storage and energy benefits associated with the new dwelling. The scheme would involve the loss of the garage with one additional space provided to the front of [site address] and retention of the existing hardstanding to the front of the garage. As such, there would be maintenance of provision and increase in demand arising from the new dwelling. On balance, the likelihood of parking being removed from the highway is limited and as a suggested benefit, this is afforded limited weight.

The creation of formalised refuse storage could be achieved in relation to the existing site in any case and there is no evidence that the current informal arrangements have any harmful impact. As such, this is afforded very limited weight.

The appellant has submitted evidence to demonstrate a 20% decrease in carbon emissions from a notional building specification in line with the Council’s policy. The use of an Air Source Heat Pump and solar panels would embed renewable and low carbon technologies into the building fabric in line with NPPF ambitions towards a net zero future which represents a benefit of modest weight in support of the scheme. A letter supporting the scheme has been submitted on the basis that the new dwelling would make a contribution towards the local and national housing supply but suggests that the number of solar panels could be increased giving further benefit in terms of sustainable energy.

As described above, the proposed dwelling would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the terrace and surrounding area. Paragraph 232 of the NPPF makes it clear that weight should be given to development plan policies according to their consistency with the NPPF itself. Chapter 12 confirms that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development. Specifically, it provides that development is visually attractive as a result of good architecture, and is sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment. Development that is not well designed should be refused. Therefore, the conflict between the proposed development and Policies BSC21, DM21, DM26, DM27 and DM29 should be given significant weight in this appeal.

Whilst the development would accord with the aims and objectives of the Council to increase the supply of housing, use land efficiently and further climate change issues, the degree of harm to the character and appearance of the existing terrace and surrounding area brings the scheme into conflict with the development plan as a whole.

The Council acknowledges the absence of a 5-year supply of new homes across the city and confirms that the housing delivery results over the previous three years are substantially below the housing requirement. No further details are provided regarding the nature of the housing need or the numerical shortfall. In these circumstances, footnote 8 of the NPPF establishes that the policies which are most important for determining the application are out of date. Consequently, permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole, having particular regard to key policies which include, amongst other things, securing well designed places.

As described above, the benefits associated with the single dwelling would be minor as a contribution towards the objective of boosting the supply of housing in the NPPF and addressing the Councils housing land supply. The NPPF states that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, creates better places in which to live and work and helps to make development acceptable to communities. It also gives significant weight to development which reflects local design policies.

Consequently, the harm to the character and appearance of the existing terrace and surrounding area would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposed development when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole. As a result, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply.

For the reasons set out above, the proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations, including the NPPF, do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. As such, the appeal is dismissed.