Rear and side extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 27 March 2018 by Andrew Dawe BSc(Hons) MSc MPhil MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 29 March 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/Z0116/D/18/3194296 208A Rose Green Road, Eastville, Bristol BS5 7UP  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 Mrs M Lintern against the decision of Bristol City Council.  The application Ref 17/06516/H, dated 22 November 2017, was refused by notice dated 23 January 2018.  The development proposed is rear and side extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties in respect of outlook. Reasons 3. The proposed single storey extension would bring the existing dwelling to within very close proximity of the site boundary adjacent to two other residential properties. It would extend alongside the entire length of the stretch of that boundary adjacent to the front garden area of the nearest of those dwellings. Significantly, there are glazed patio doors on the front elevation of that dwelling positioned close to the boundary concerned. That property is also at a lower level than No 208A, such that the screen fencing on the boundary, raised at the site’s higher level, already has an enclosing effect to some degree. 4. The proposed extension would be noticeably higher than that fence at both the flat roof level, and more so in respect of the gable end feature. Due to its close proximity to the boundary concerned it would therefore be clearly seen over the fence from that neighbouring room, even with the small amount of existing fence topping vegetation and despite the patio doors not directly facing it. As such, and due to the close proximity to the patio doors concerned and the extent to which it would project alongside that boundary, the proposal would be likely to significantly exacerbate the existing situation causing an unacceptable enclosing and overbearing effect when looking out from that neighbouring room. 5. The appellant highlights that there was previously a building on the site adjacent to the boundary concerned. However, that building is no longer there and I have no evidence as to how long that has been the case or in respect of Appeal Decision APP/Z0116/D/18/3194296 2 its height and massing. I am therefore unable to make a proper comparison with the likely effects of the proposed development and so have afforded little weight to this factor. 6. In respect of the other of the two neighbouring dwellings referred to above, the proposal would only project alongside a small section of that property’s front boundary and set well away from and not in direct line of sight of the nearest window. For those combined reasons, it would be unlikely to have a significant enclosing or overbearing effect when seen from that property. However, this does not deflect from my findings in respect of the effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of the other, nearer, neighbouring dwelling. 7. For the above reasons, the proposed development would cause unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of that dwelling nearest to it in respect of outlook. As such, it would be contrary to policy BCS21 of the Bristol Development Framework Core Strategy and policies DM27 and DM30 of the Bristol Local Plan Site Allocations and Development Management Policies which together, amongst other things, require new development to safeguard the amenity of existing development and neighbouring occupiers, and to enable existing development to achieve appropriate levels of outlook. Conclusion 8. For the above reasons, and taking account of all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Andrew Dawe INSPECTOR