Appeal 6003103

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for development described as ‘retrospective planning for a single storey side garden extension, relocation of front door and forming front drive area’ at [site address] , [name] [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref P25/02433/HH, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans, drawing reference 3875/13C and 3875/11C insofar as they relate to the single storey side garden extension, relocation of front door and formation of front drive area only.

The “hedge reinstated” as it is referred to on the plans hereby approved shall be planted during the first planting season following completion of the development hereby permitted. It shall be maintained for a period of five years, during which should any part be damaged or die a suitable replacement should be planted.

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. Some works in regard to which have been carried out, but not complete. I have considered it accordingly. There are some alleged discrepancies with the submitted plans which I have dealt with below. The Council has confirmed that the boundary fence adjacent the back edge of [address] does not benefit from planning permission and allowances under permitted development have been removed. I have no reason to disagree.

The main issues are the effect of the development on a) the character and appearance of the area; and b) the living conditions of the occupiers of Number [address] (No 84), with specific regard to outlook and day/sun light.

The appeal site is a two-storey, end-terrace property. The principal elevation is oriented towards [address], whilst the rest of the terrace runs perpendicular to the appeal site. The primary entrance to the dwelling has been relocated to the side elevation, in line with those along the rest of the terrace. The property has a small private garden, into which the new single-storey extension projects. There is a striking level of greenery present in the setting of the appeal site, which characterises the outlook from the rear of the dwelling.

The terraced row is formed of similar sized properties, all with a modest amount of private garden space, which backs onto a detached garage block and parking area. The appeal site is sited in a predominantly residential area, with its immediate setting characterised by properties of a similar scale and design. There is an overall cohesive appearance to the setting, with a material palette of red brick and rendered properties, often with a small entrance porch. There are other examples of terraced rows such as the appeal property.

The Council makes it clear that the relocation of the front door to the side elevation and the installation of a replacement window to the front elevation are acceptable. I have no reason to disagree. They have further noted that the window is smaller than that shown on the submitted plans. This does not introduce any new perceived level of harm. From my observations on site, the canopy to the relocated front door appears to relate to the submitted plans. It is a small and unobtrusive addition.

Despite that the extension appears to be flush with the original front elevation and not stepped as per the submitted plans, a complementary materials palette will effectively assimilate the extension with the host dwelling and minimise any perceived impact on the wider street scene. The mono-pitched roof of the extension responds well to the pre-existing mono-pitch roof on the front elevation, a feature which is repeated elsewhere in the setting of the appeal dwelling.

As such, the proposals would have an acceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area. They would thus comply with Policy PSP38 of the South Gloucestershire Local Plan: Policies, Sites and Places Plan (2017) (PSP) and Policy CS1 of the South Gloucestershire Local Plan: [name] (2013) (CS). Together, these require, amongst other things, development to respect and enhance the character of the site and context having regard to form, scale, proportion, and massing.

They further align with the principles of the South Gloucestershire Council Supplementary Planning Document: [name] (2021) which advises that the existing characteristics of the host dwelling should be incorporated into the development to aid integration, with reference to form.

Whilst the plot size is modest, the neighbouring property (No 84) enjoys a spacious outlook by virtue of the distance between it and the nearest built form to the rear. This outlook is also characterised by the overwhelmingly residential appearance of its surroundings. The extension is visible in views from the ground and first floor windows of No 84, but due to its single-storey nature and relatively shallow depth, it does not appear as an overbearing structure, nor does it dominate the experience from windows of habitable rooms.

The height of the extension means that a sufficient and generous amount of daylight is still received by these windows, including the ground floor one situated closest to the appeal property. With regard to sunlight, there has been a change as a result of the development, with a small increase in the level of overshadowing experienced to the patio area of No 84 and closest windows. Notwithstanding this, the path of the sun, combined with the orientation of both the appeal dwelling and the neighbouring property means that this part of the garden already experienced a level of overshadowing, particularly in the latter part of the day. The modest nature of the development has not resulted in such a significant change to the level of sunlight experienced that it would be considered to have had a negative effect.

Overall, the development would have an acceptable effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 84. It would thereby comply with the requirements of Policies PSP8 and PSP38 of the PSP for development to not prejudice the amenity of neighbours and to not result in an overbearing, dominant or a loss of light impact.

Since works have started, a time condition is not necessary. I have however referred to the approved plans, for certainty and enforcement purposes. In so doing, I have identified the specifics of the development that is permitted, in light of the Council’s stance on the garden fence. The submitted plans are the only ones before me. I have commented on what appear to be very marginal differences between them and the works undertaken and whether they would be the source of harm. It is for the Council to resolve any outstanding issues in this respect.

In the interest of maintaining the verdant character of the area, I agree that a condition requiring the reinstatement of the hedge (and an appropriate timescale for its maintenance) as it is referred to by the Council and identified on the approved plans is necessary.

For the reasons given above, the appeal scheme would comply with the development plan. I therefore recommend it should be allowed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted subject to the aforementioned conditions.