Appeal 6003163

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: • whether the proposal would provide acceptable living conditions for future occupants, with specific regard to outlook, daylight, sunlight and outdoor amenity space, and the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of neighbouring occupants, with specific regard to outlook, privacy, daylight, and noise; • whether the proposal would provide adequate cycle and refuse storage; and • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, and the setting of Montpelier Conservation Area and nearby Grade II Listed Buildings.

Although the entrance of the appeal site from [address] is relatively small, the existing building occupies the entirety of its L-shaped plot which wraps around [address]. Most recently used as a car wash, its commercial character is reflected in the large expanses of part brick, part metal cladding walls which bound the site.

The master bedroom would have two windows on the side elevation fitted with vertical timber fins. Although the fins would only occupy one third of the glazed area of the windows and would allow sight of the sky, they would interrupt the outlook from the master bedroom. In addition, given the depth of the fins compared to their spacing, outlook would be severely restricted unless occupants face straight onto the window. As such, most of the room would have no meaningful outlook from these windows.

Although the larger window on the side return would look onto the small sedum roof, it would face the privacy screen which would be installed at [address] proximity. Although the window would allow views of the sky, views would be limited on one side by the proposed building itself, leaving only an outlook onto the blank walls at 126 and [address]. The skylight which would be installed in the master bedroom would not provide any meaningful outlook to the future occupants. Therefore, despite the cumulative amount of glazing in the master bedroom, satisfactory outlook would not be provided for future occupants.

Daylight would enter the skylight and side return window in the master bedroom, and to a lesser extent, the windows with fins. Given the combination of all four windows and their varied orientations, the occupants would have acceptable access to daylight from the master bedroom.

The amount of sunlight in the master bedroom would be limited through the windows with fins owing to their depth and spacing, which would result in sunlight reaching the bedroom for only a small part of the day. Sunlight would also be partially limited through the side return window, as the taller buildings on [address] would block direct sunlight. In contrast, the skylight would provide direct sunlight to the master bedroom and taking into account its orientation and the relatively shallow roof pitch, would provide a reasonable amount of sunlight.

While most rooms would be single aspect, a number of skylights are proposed which would provide each room on the first floor with sunlight. Similarly, the large skylight and vaulted space would provide direct and dispersed sunlight to the ground floor. Although the rooms may experience shade, they would be served by more than one opening, increasing the amount of light, and sunlight throughout the proposal.

The proposal would provide private outdoor amenity space for the proposed dwelling. The evidence provided shows the outdoor amenity space of surrounding buildings, which appear to be mixed in size. In this regard the outdoor space provided for the proposed dwelling is comparable in size to those surrounding it. The Council also note that the dwelling would have an overbearing impact on the outdoor amenity space. However, given the proportions of its length compared to its width, I do not find that the proposed dwelling would be overbearing.

Neighbouring buildings, 126 and [address] are in commercial use at ground floor level, and the residential units on the first floor do not have access to any outdoor amenity space. The fin detailing on the windows in the master bedroom and mezzanine would direct views towards Nos 126 and 128. However, given that the rear outriggers of Nos 126 and 128 would interrupt views into bedroom 2 of No 126, and bedroom 4 of No 128, the occupants of Nos 126 and 128 would not experience any overlooking or loss of privacy as a result of the proposal.

The existing rear-facing first floor window of No 130 appears to have an internal view into the appeal property. Consequently, the proposal would not reduce the amount of daylight or sunlight entering into this window, nor diminish its outlook.

The proposal would install an air source heat pump (ASHP), which would be located within the garden, in the corner between the side wall of the proposal, and the rear boundary of the dwellings on [address]. I have limited details before me about the specification of the ASHP. However, I have had regard to the advice of the Council’s Pollution Control Officer who advises that noise disturbance to neighbouring properties could be avoided through a suitably worded planning

Accordingly, although the proposal would provide adequate living conditions for neighbouring occupiers with regard to outlook, privacy, daylight and noise, and future occupants with regards to daylight, sunlight and outdoor amenity space. However, it would fail to provide suitable outlook from the master bedroom and thus would not provide adequate living conditions for future occupants.

The proposal would be contrary to Policy BCS21 of the [name], and Policies DM27 and DM29 of the Local Plan, in so far as their collective requirement to ensure development creates a high-quality environment for future occupiers, together with ensuring development achieve appropriate levels of privacy, outlook and daylight.

I have found no conflict with Policy BCS23 of the Bristol Development Framework: [name] (2011) ([name]) and Policy DM35 of the Bristol Local Plan: Site Allocations and Development Management Policies (2014) (Local Plan), which requires development to avoid adversely impacting environmental amenity of the surrounding area by reason of noise.

A demarcated area for cycle storage is shown within the private hallway of the proposed dwelling, providing two cycle spaces, beyond a shared porch. Although the porch is narrow, it is relatively short, therefore occupants would be able to use and pass through the space easily with a cycle.

Policy DM23 of the Local Plan requires development proposals to provide an appropriate level of safe, secure, accessible and usable parking provision. Although the cycle parking is smaller than the minimum set out in Bristol’s Transport Development Management Cycle Parking Guidance, the short distance between the cycle storage and the front door would allow easy access. As such, the cycle storage provision would be sufficient.

The submitted plans show the internal arrangement of the refuse storage area for the appeal dwelling and No 130, which demonstrates how the refuse and recycling containers would be arranged within the shared porch. In the event the appeal were allowed, additional details, including the capacity of refuse bins, could be secured by condition.

For these reasons, the proposal would provide adequate cycle and refuse storage. As such, the proposal would comply with Policies DM23 and DM32 of the Local Plan, and Policy BCS10 of the [name] which collective seek to provide sufficient space for the storage of individual recycling and refuse containers and to promote opportunities for cycling through the provision of accessible and usable parking.

The site is within [name], a vibrant mixed-use area with residential dwellings, shops, community uses and commercial buildings. There are a mix of building styles surrounding the appeal site. Light-coloured rendered terraced buildings line one side of the road, with one terrace interspersed with stone gable fronted buildings. A more modern row of red-brick terraced dwellings, set back from the road, line the other side. A triangular, public park sits opposite the appeal site.

Although the appeal site addresses [address], its frontage is angled to follow the corner of [address]. A large roller-shutter door occupies most of the façade and therefore is a visually prominent feature and is formative of the building’s commercial character. The building’s angled frontage and low height appear unique within its surroundings. Whilst these features are a departure from the character and appearance of [address] and [address], they give the building a recessive appearance. For these reasons, the building’s scale and form make a neutral contribution to the character and appearance of the area.

However, there is a graffiti-art style mural across the front elevation. This reflects the sites commercial past as a car wash and contributes positively to the area’s vibrant character.

The site is near to, but outside of the Montpelier Conservation Area (CA). The significance of the CA is derived from its high quality domestically scaled Georgian and Victorian properties, which although densely packed, have large garden plots and mature trees. The appeal site is set back from the southern boundary of the CA, separated from it by the triangular park which slopes gently up to [address]. This intervening distance, together with the level changes mean there is a visual and physical separation between the appeal site and the CA. Given this relationship, the appeal site makes a negligible contribution to the setting of the CA.

Facing the appeal site, a number of semi-detached [name] listed buildings front [address] on the southern boundary of the CA. These include Nos 119 and [address] (Ref 1201971), Nos 123 and 125 (Ref 1203576), Nos 127 and 129 (Ref 1282419), Nos 131 and 133 (Ref 1203580), Nos 135 and 137 (Ref 1201972), and Nos 139 and 141 (Ref 1203589). Dating from the late 18th century, the limestone ashlar buildings are 2-3 storeys with attics and basements. They are separated from the road behind a walled garden planted with mature trees, which together with their grand scale, forms their special interest. As such, I find the setting of the buildings, in so far as it relates to these appeals, to be primarily associated with the plots within which they are sited. Given this separation, together with their distance and level changes, the listed buildings opposite are visually and physically separated from the appeal site. As such, the appeal site makes a negligible contribution to their setting.

A Grade II listed building, the Prince of [address] (Ref 1203591), is on the same side of the road as the appeal site. It is a two storey mid-terraced building and is a complete example of a mid-19th century public house façade. As such, its special interest is derived from its architectural value. Although it is on the same side of the road as the appeal site, the setting of the [address] comprises [address] and the busy junction near to the listed building, rather than [address], owing to the bend in the road, and the angled façade which faces away from [address]. As such, the appeal site makes a negligible contribution to the setting of the listed building.

The proposed dwelling would be of a comparable height to the existing building. Its façade would follow the existing building line, cornering the junction of [address] and [address], thereby retaining its recessive appearance within the street scene.

The proposal would remove the roller shutter door, replacing it with a domestically scaled front door and window. Metal cladding would be used on the principal elevation which would retain the commercial and functional appearance of the building which is currently achieved through the large roller-shutter door.

The loss of the existing mural could be mitigated through a suitably worded planning condition requiring a replacement be commissioned. Therefore, the alterations to the front elevation would have a neutral effect on the character and appearance of the area.

Although the rear of the site is of very limited visibility in public views, the existing building covers the entire plot and has tall walls which sit against it’s boundary. The proposal would decrease the form and massing of the building, creating space between the boundary and the side elevation, where the garden area would be sited. The introduction of windows and steps in the side elevation would visually break-up the scale and form of the building, particularly when viewed from the surrounding buildings. The proposal would result in a reduction in plot coverage, opening the rear of the plot, visually reducing the bulk of the building.

Overall, the proposal would be in keeping with the character and appearance of the area through the introduction of a domestically scaled frontage, retaining similar proportions on the front elevation while reducing the bulk and massing of the building at the rear. Given my findings, and that the appeal site makes a negligible contribution to the setting of the CA, [name] listed buildings opposite on [address], and the [name] listed Prince of [address], the proposal would not affect the appreciation of these heritage assets. I am content that the proposal would not erode any elements which contribute positively to the special interest and significance of the nearby [name] listed buildings and the CA, not would it detract from the setting of the heritage assets. This would satisfy the requirements of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and paragraph 210 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework).

For these reasons, I conclude that the proposal would preserve the setting of the nearby listed buildings and CA, causing no harm to the significance of these heritage assets. The proposal would also have a neutral effect on the character and appearance of the area. The proposal would, therefore, be in accordance with Policies BCS9, BCS21 and BCS22 of the [name], and Policies DM21, DM26, DM27, DM29 and DM31 of the Local Plan, which requires proposals be of a height, scale and massing that is appropriate to the immediate context and character of adjoining streets, while conserving and, where appropriate, enhancing

The Framework does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision making. The proposal is not in accordance with the aforementioned policies of the development plan, with the associated conflict reflecting harm to living conditions of future occupants. For these reasons, the development conflicts with the development plan as a whole and should be refused unless other material considerations indicate otherwise.

Currently, Bristol City Council is unable to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply. Paragraph 11(d)(ii) of the Framework explains that in these circumstances, planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.

Paragraph 135 of the Framework requires development create places with a high standard of amenity for future occupants. For this reason, the conflict between the proposal and Policy BCS21 of the [name], and Policies DM27 and DM29 of the Local Plan, which together form the Development Plan, carries significant weight in this appeal.

Set against this harm, the proposal would make a positive contribution to housing supply, particularly of family-sized dwellings which have been identified as being needed within the area, supporting the government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes, and would make efficient use of land through the re-use of an existing building. It would also make a small, positive contribution to the transition to net zero, set out in Framework paragraph 161, through providing air source heat pumps to enhance the environmental sustainability of the scheme. However, the addition of one dwelling would represent only a small contribution to the area’s housing supply, and therefore the scale of benefits associated with one additional dwelling would be modest.

Planning permission has been granted for the change of use of the first floor of No 130 to a self-contained flat (LPA reference 25/12453/CU). It is asserted that the proposal would provide a small private terrace for use by the occupants of No 130. In addition, the proposed bedroom window at No [address], allowing for a degree of external outlook and the admission of natural light. However, at the time of my visit, had not been implemented, and therefore No 130 did not offer residential accommodation. In addition, the appellant indicates the implementation of that permission is contingent upon the demolition of the commercial building on the appeal site. Therefore, there is insufficient certainty that both schemes are capable of being implemented simultaneously. Moreover, since I have been provided no mechanism to secure access to the roof terrace, I cannot be certain that any prospective occupants of No 130 would have use of the roof terrace in perpetuity. Therefore, the alleged benefits to the quality of accommodation at No 130 carry very limited weight in my decision.

The appellant notes that, were the appeal dismissed, the appeal site would remain in commercial use. As set out above, I do not consider the existing building to be demonstrably harmful to the street scene. Moreover, I have no reason to consider that dismissing the appeal would result in the intensification of the commercial use of the site, nor that noise and disturbance would occur. Therefore, the continuation of the building’s existing commercial use is a neutral factor which weighs neither for nor against the proposal.

Consequently, the scale of benefits associated with one additional dwelling would be modest. Therefore, the adverse impacts of the proposal on the living conditions of future occupants would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies of the Framework taken as a whole.

As set out above, I have found the proposed development would not harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupants, would provide adequate cycle and refuse storage, and would not harm the character and appearance of the area, including the significance of the heritage assets. However, the proposal would not provide suitable living conditions for future occupants.

The proposal would therefore conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no other considerations which outweigh this finding. For the reasons given the appeal should be dismissed.