Two storey rear extension and front porch

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 10 October 2017 by Rory Cridland LLB (Hons), Solicitor an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 3rd November 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/Z0116/D/17/3176247 4 Woodcote Road, Speedwell, Bristol BS16 4DE  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.  The appeal is made by Mr Matthew against the decision of Bristol City Council.  The application Ref 17/00832/H, dated 16 February 2017, was refused by notice dated 10 April 2017.  The development proposed is two storey rear extension and front porch. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a two-storey rear extension and front porch at 4 Woodcote Road, Speedwell, Bristol BS16 4DE in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 17/00832/H, dated 16 February 2017, subject to the conditions set out below: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin no later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: R1069/01; R1069/02 Rev C; R1069/03 Rev C. 3) No development shall commence until details of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Preliminary Matter 2. The description of development in the heading above has been taken from the planning application form. However, in Part E of the appeal form it is stated that the description of development has not changed but, nevertheless, a different wording has been entered. Neither of the main parties has provided written confirmation that a revised description of development has been agreed. Accordingly, I have used the one given on the original application. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of occupiers of No. 2 Woodcote Road, with particular regard to outlook. Appeal Decision APP/Z0116/D/17/3176247 2 Reasons 4. The appeal property is one of a pair of semi-detached dwellings situated in a residential street characterised by properties of a similar appearance. The proposal would involve the erection of a two-storey rear extension in close proximity to the boundary with neighbouring No 2. Planning permission (Ref 16/06547/H) has already been granted for a two-storey rear extension which would be situated around four metres from the boundary with that property. The current proposal would bring the position of the two storey element closer to this boundary resulting in a separation distance of around 2m. 5. The Council accepts that the proposed extension would be visually acceptable and would have no impact on light levels for the occupiers of neighbouring No 2. However, it raises concerns regarding the effect that this reduced separation distance would have on the outlook currently enjoyed by the occupiers of that dwelling. While I acknowledge that by bringing the two-storey element closer to the shared boundary, its visual impact would be greater, it would nevertheless remain sufficiently distant from the boundary to ensure that it did not result in an overbearing addition or create any significant sense of enclosure - either from within the neighbouring dwelling itself or its rear garden area. 6. Overall, I do not consider it would be materially detrimental to the outlook currently enjoyed by the occupiers of No 2 Woodcote Road or would be materially harmful to their living conditions. As such, I find no conflict with CS Policy BCS21 or SADMP Policy DM30, both of which seek to ensure that new development is of a high quality design which, amongst other things, safeguards the amenity of neighbouring occupiers in terms of, amongst other things, outlook. Planning Conditions 7. I have had regard to the planning conditions suggested by the Council. In addition to the standard commencement condition, I agree that a condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans is necessary in order to provide certainty. Likewise, a condition requiring the materials to be used in the construction of the extension to match those of the existing building is appropriate in the interests of character and appearance. Conclusion 8. For the reasons set out above, and having had regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. Rory Cridland INSPECTOR