Double storey side and single storey rear extension with part demolition of existing garage

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 13 March 2018 by Rory Cridland LLB (Hons), Solicitor an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 27th March 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/Z0116/D/17/3189961 8 Newcombe Road, Westbury-on-Trym, Bristol BS9 3QS  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 Roger & Claire Bull against the decision of Bristol City Council.  The application Ref 17/03750/H, dated 6 July 2017, was refused by notice dated 1 September 2017.  The development proposed is a double storey side and single storey rear extension with part demolition of existing garage. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a double storey side and single storey rear extension with part demolition of existing garage at 8 Newcombe Road, Westbury-on-Trym, Bristol BS9 3QS in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 17/03750/H, dated 6 July 2017, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not 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: 8/NR/W/01/P; 8/NR/W/02/P; 8/NR/W/02A/P; 8/NR/W/03/P; 8/NR/W/04/P; 8/NR/W/05/P; 8/NR/W/06/P; 8/NR/W/07/P; 8/NR/W/08/P; 8/NR/W/09/P 8/NR/W/10/P; 8/NR/W/00/P. 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extensions shall match those used in the existing building. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring properties with particular regard to outlook. Reasons 3. The appeal property consists of one of a pair of semi-detached dwellings situated in an established residential area. Many of the dwellings have driveways to the side which separate them from the neighbouring pair and result in reasonable sized gaps. Along these side elevations, many of the properties have side facing windows (or doors) which provide additional sources of daylight to the ground floor. A number of the properties nearby benefit from various alterations and additions which include examples of two storey side extensions of a comparable size to that currently proposed. Appeal Decisions APP/Z0116/D/17/3189961 2 4. The proposal would involve the part demolition of the existing garage and the erection of a two storey side and single storey rear extension. The Council’s concerns centre on the proximity of the two storey side extension to the side window of neighbouring No 10 and the effect it would have on the outlook currently enjoyed by the occupiers of that dwelling. 5. At present the outlook from this window comprises the side elevation of No 8, which is separated from No 10 by a reasonable sized gap. However, as is the case with many of the properties along Newcombe Road, the contribution this side window makes to outlook is already limited. Indeed, I observed that the main, and more pleasant, outlook was provided by the windows and doors situated along the rear elevation of that property. While I accept that the proposal would bring the side elevation of No 8 closer to the side facing window of No 10, I consider the overall impact on outlook would be minimal. 6. Furthermore, I noted that there were a number of other two storey side extensions in nearby dwellings, including at No’s 6 & 11A - both of which are comparable to the extension currently proposed. There is no evidence which would indicate that these have resulted in any material loss of outlook for the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings or that the proposed extension would result in any greater impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring No 10. 7. On balance, I do not consider the new extension would materially affect the outlook currently enjoyed by the occupiers of neighbouring No 10. As such, I find no conflict with Policy BCS21 of the Core Strategy1, Policy DM30 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies2 or the advice set out in the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document No 2 (2005) all of which seek to ensure that, amongst other things, new development safeguards neighbouring amenity. Conditions 8. 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 appropriate in order to provide certainty. Likewise, I consider a condition requiring matching materials to be used in the construction of the extension to be appropriate in the interests of character and appearance. Conclusion 9. 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 1 Bristol Development Framework Core Strategy (2011). 2 Bristol Local Plan Site Allocations and Development Management Policies (2014).