Appeal 6004748

The appeal is dismissed.

My attention has been drawn to an incorrect planning reference bracketed at the end of the description of development in the banner heading above. This has been corrected in the submitted appeal form description, which matches the Council’s decision letter, to erection of a first floor extension to link side extension to detached garage/annexe. (Resubmission of P25/00190/HH). I have determined the appeal on this basis.

I note the site’s planning history with previously approved extensions under construction (per permission P22/06853/HH). The appeal proposal solely relates to a first-floor link between the granted extension and existing garage building.

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

The appeal site comprises a two-storey semi-detached cottage-style dwelling. It sits at the end of a no-through private residential road, which separates dwellings from their existing front garden space and outbuildings. The appeal property lies within a predominantly residential area of modest two-storey detached and semi-detached homes, and overlooks an area of grassed open space.

Policy PSP1 of the South Gloucestershire Local Plan: Policies, Sites and Places Plan (Adopted) November 2017 (‘the LP’) states that proposals are acceptable where they demonstrate an understanding of, and respond constructively to the buildings and characteristics that make a particularly positive contribution to the distinctiveness of the area/locality. Policy CS1 of the South Gloucestershire Local Plan: [name] (Adopted) December 2013 requires, amongst other things, development proposals to demonstrate that siting, form, scale, height, massing, detailing, colour and materials, are informed by, respect and enhance the character, distinctiveness and amenity of both the site and its context. The Householder Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document 2021 (SPD) amplifies the aims of those policies.

The proposed development would fill a gap between the existing, large, detached garage to the front of the dwelling and two-storey side extension under construction, by creating a short physical first floor link with gap below maintained. However, it would result in the removal of an important visual break, compounded by a continuous ridgeline and side elevation walling, which facilitates a spacious, open appearance between buildings, a characteristic of the surrounding area.

The proposed first floor extension in itself would be modest in scale and size. However, cumulatively, when viewed with the approved extensions it would be seen as the creation of a large, disproportionate building. This would appear out of place and would visually dominate the original dwelling causing harm to its character and appearance.

The proposed development would protrude above the appeal site’s side boundary fence adjoining [address], and when read together with the existing built form of the two-storey side extension and garage would result in a visibly conspicuous addition that introduces noticeable massing and would not appear subservient to the modest host dwelling.

Despite the use of sensitive materials and a commitment to using local materials, I have determined that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the appeal site and wider area. I acknowledge the submitted endorsement of positive support from the local community for the first-floor link extension however this would not outweigh the harm I have identified.

The infilling of the existing gap would erode the established sense of spacing between existing buildings and introduce an unbroken built form, creating a visually dominant and overly assertive appearance that would jar with the prevailing pattern of development. This effect would be particularly pronounced when viewed from [address] and its pedestrian link to the open space adjoining the appeal property.

In conclusion, the proposal would conflict with Policy PSP1 of the LP and CS1 of the [name] and guidance set out in the SPD, which among other things, requires development to demonstrate its overall appearance and design respects the character and enhances the character, and positively contributes to the distinctiveness of the area/locality. The proposed development also conflicts with the design principles set out in paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework (‘the Framework’).

I acknowledge the proposal would achieve useful family accommodation and improve current living arrangements for the appellant. However, these would be private benefits. There would be some small economic benefits accrued through the construction change, but these would be small given the scale of the proposal. They do not outweigh the harm I have identified or lead me to a different conclusion that the appeal should be dismissed.

For the reasons set out above, the proposal would conflict with the development plan when read as a whole, and the Framework. Material considerations do not indicate that a decision should be taken other than in accordance with the development plan. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.