Appeal 6005187

The appeal is dismissed.

The council’s description of development removes unnecessary descriptive information from that presented on the application form. As it is clear and adequate, I have determined the appeal on the basis of that description which is set out in the banner heading above.

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

This locality of Bristol is primarily residential with supporting community and commercial uses. Residential properties comprise a mix of two storey, one and a half storey and single storey dwellings featuring a variety of styles, designs and building lines. Many of the properties have been extended and / or include parking space to the front of the dwellings.

The appeal site is positioned on an internal corner of [address], with a church and church hall opposite. It comprises the right half of a semi-detached pairing with a tapered plot, widest at the front with an increasingly narrow rear. The proposed extension responds to this by maximising the footprint to the front of the site and then stepping in as the site narrows. The extension, at maximum width, flush with the existing front elevation and accompanied by a substantial mono pitched roof and new bay window with its own roofing structure, would be highly visible within the street scene.

Whilst there is no predominant building style or pattern in the wider locality, the semi-detached properties of the immediate vicinity have a similar appearance and building line. The proposed development would be viewed as an awkward element, breaking the building line around the bend in the road to extend forward of the neighbouring garage and front elevation to [address]. The width and lack of any set-back to ensure subservience, would draw visual attention to the extension and make it prominent at this location contrary to the guidance contained within the councils Supplementary Planning Document 2: A Guide for [address] Alterations and Extensions (2005) (SPD).

The appellant considers that the single storey nature of the development would result in it being read as an appropriate ancillary addition to the building. However, in this case the width, siting and design elements, including the mono pitched roof reinforce the bulk of the development. Consequently, despite its single storey design it would visually detract from the original dwelling.

Neither the mono pitched or the bay window roof structures would be visually compatible with the host dwelling and would jar against one another, reinforcing this effect and creating a discordant and visually intrusive development detrimental to the character of the semi-detached pairing. Neither the available space, nor the proposed use of materials to match the existing dwelling would be sufficient to prevent the resulting harm to the appearance of the dwelling itself, the pairing or the street scene.

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, DM28 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 SPD 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.

For the reasons given above, the appeal should be dismissed.