Appeal 6003457

The appeal is dismissed.

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

The appeal site is located within a planned residential estate of interwar suburban character. It comprises the right half of one of eight pairs of semi-detached houses on both sides of this section of [address]. The topography is sloping and therefore the pairings step down at ground level as they progress along the street.

Other than a lean-to single garage on the side elevation of the appeal property and several small-scale porches, the dwellings are of uniform width and appearance with minimal alterations impacting their symmetry. As such, they retain their original detailing, spacing and stepped heights to create a distinct rhythm and character typical of the wider area. Small front gardens and limited boundary treatments mean that the dwellings are generally highly visible.

The appeal property was originally the end dwelling on this section of [address] however an infill development of a single detached dwelling now occupies the corner to the junction with The Greenway. The new dwelling has been positioned to respect the spacing and rhythm along the street scene and whilst not matching the width of the semi-detached pairings, is sufficiently reflective of their form and design so as not to undermine their character.

The proposed development would replace the single garage with a two-storey extension sitting flush with the front and rear building lines. The first-floor element and hipped roof ridge line would be marginally set back and down although not to such a degree that the scale of the extension would be noticeably reduced from that of the host dwelling.

Whilst the roof design reflects that of the host dwelling, the scale, form and positioning of the overall extension would be such that it would physically and visually in-fill a significant proportion of the gap between the existing and neighbouring dwellings, breaking the uniformity and rhythm of the street scene and introducing a discordant terracing effect. The proposed use of materials to match the existing dwelling and retention of a nominal 1 metre gap to the side boundary would be insufficient to prevent this harm.

The appellant has referenced other examples of two storey side extensions within the vicinity of the appeal property. Number [address] is an end terrace property which visually relates to the prominent corner around which the terrace is positioned. As such, it does not contribute to the eight semi-detached pairings but stands separately with greater spacing around the side of the property. The two-storey extension in that instance is also notably set down and back from the front elevation to be clearly subservient to the host dwelling.

At 62 The Greenway (referred to as neighbouring [address] by the appellant), the constructed extension reflects the form of that currently proposed at the appeal site. In this case, the property is the last on a curving street of both semi-detached and terraced properties so that the street scene is not experienced in the same way and is less sensitive to change. Thus, neither are directly comparable nor do they provide a precedent for the visual harm which would result from the proposed development.

For the reasons above, the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the street scene and surrounding area, conflicting with Policy BSC21 of the Bristol Development Framework: [name] (2011) and Policies DM26, DM27 and DM30 of Bristol Local Plan: Site Allocations and Development Management Policies (2014). Taken together, these policies seek to raise design quality to a high standard for all new development, with specific focus on contributing positively to local distinctiveness, and respect for the siting, scale, form, and proportions of existing dwellings.

The proposed development would also be contrary to the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document 2: A Guide for [address] Alterations and Extensions (2005) which sets out principles of good design and Chapter 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework which establishes the importance of high-quality design within the built environment.

The appellant presents that the extension is necessary to provide essential living space for the occupiers. However, it has not been demonstrated that the appeal scheme is the only means by which this outcome could be achieved or that there is no alternative which would be less harmful in respect of its visual impact. This factor attracts limited weight in favour of the appeal and does not outweigh the harm in respect of the main issue.

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