Appeal 6004155

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for erection of a first floor side extension and installation of 1no. rooflight at [site address] , [name] [postcode] in accordance with application Ref 25/P/2231/S73 made on 24 October 2025 without complying with condition 2 set out in planning permission Ref 24/P/1636/FUH granted on 22 November 2024 by North Somerset Council otherwise subject to the following conditions: 1.) The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiry of three years from the date of the planning permission reference 24/P/1636/FUH, approved on 22 November 2024. 2.) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans and documents: BREN 1, BREN 4, BREN 6A, Preliminary Bat Roost Assessment ([name], November 2024), Site Location Plan. 3.) The external walling and roofing materials to be used in the building works hereby permitted shall match those of the existing building. If any other material is proposed no development shall take place until such has been approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. 4.) The development shall not take place except in strict accordance with the measures outlined in Section 5 of the Preliminary Bat Roost Assessment ([name], November 2024). If amendments to the methodology are required, details of the changes must be submitted in writing and agreed by the Local Planning Authority before relevant works proceed. The development shall then be implemented in accordance with the agreed changes. 5.) No external lighting shall be installed on site until details, including: i. details of the type and location of the proposed lighting; ii. existing lux levels affecting the site; iii. the proposed lux levels; and iv. lighting contour plans have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Any external lighting shall be installed and operated in accordance with the approved details.

Planning application 24/P/1636/FUH granted permission for a first floor side extension and installation of 1no. rooflight. That permission included a number of conditions, one of which (condition 2) specifies the approved plans and documents. The appellant wishes to vary this condition and replace it with a condition specifying plans that reflect an amended design.

The Council refused this application due to its effects on the character and appearance of the appeal property and the surrounding area. Taking this into account the main issue is the effect of the proposed variation of the condition on the character and appearance of the appeal property and the surrounding area.

[address] is a hipped roof semi-detached dwelling with a recessed 2- storey pitched roof extension and a flat roof garage to the side. The surrounding area comprises a mixture of 2-storey semi-detached and detached dwellings and bungalows with varying roof forms, some of which have undergone extensions and alterations. This results in a pleasant, varied character and appearance to the area.

The extension approved under application 24/P/1636/FUH has a hipped roof, which the appellant seeks to replace with a flat roof. The North Somerset Residential Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2014) (SPD) advises that extensions should have a roof that reflects the style of the existing building. The flat roof form would differ from that of the host dwelling and thus conflict arises with the guidance in the SPD. Nonetheless, the existing 2-storey pitched roof extension would be clearly visible behind the flat roof extension in street scene views, softening the impact of the proposed extension. In view of this the extension would not be comparable to the bulky, box-like flat roof extensions depicted in the SPD.

In light of the above, whilst the proposed roof form would not match that of the host dwelling, contrary to the guidance in the SPD, in these circumstances no harm would arise to the character and appearance of the host dwelling or the established character and appearance of the surrounding area as a result. Therefore, I find no conflict with policy DM38 of the [name] and Policies Plan Part 1 (Development Management Policies) (2016) which seeks to ensure that extensions respect the overall design and character of the existing property and do not harm the street scene or local area.

For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be allowed and grant a new planning permission replacing the disputed condition with an amended condition which reflects the amended design but retaining the non-disputed conditions from the previous permission that appear still to be relevant.