Two-storey side extension with front porch
📊
See the success rate & inspector analytics
Free to view — just create an account, no payment needed.
Sign Up FreeTechnical Issues Heatmap
Extensions
Character & Appearance
Inspector’s Reasoning
Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 12th December 2018
by Kim Langford Tejrar LLB (Hons) BSc (Hons) PGDIP MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 17th December 2018
Appeal Ref: APP/Z0116/D/18/3211338
11 Dorchester Road, Bristol, BS7 0LA
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 Renata Da Silva against the decision of Bristol City Council.
The application Ref 18/02454/H, dated 08/05/2018, was refused by notice dated
15/08/2018.
The development proposed is a two-storey side extension with front porch.
Decision
1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a two storey side
extension with front porch at 11 Dorchester Road, Bristol, BS7 0LA in
accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 18/02454/H, dated
08/05/2018, and the plans submitted with it, 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: 1B Proposed Topographical Survey, 2A
Existing Floor Plan, 2B Proposed Floor Plan, 3A Existing Front Elevation,
4A Existing Side Elevation, 4B Proposed Side Elevation, 5A Existing Rear
Elevation, 5B Proposed Rear Elevation.
Main Issue(s)
2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development, particularly in
respect of its scale, bulk, form and massing, on the character and appearance
of the host dwelling and the surrounding area.
Reasons
3. Dorchester Road and the roads immediately surrounding it are residential in
character, with a planned estate layout and a limited number of dwelling types
and sizes. There are other examples of single and two storey extensions in the
area, including porches which extend forward of the front elevation of their
host dwelling. In this respect, there is a degree of uniformity in built form of
the area. 11 Dorchester Road is an end of terrace. There are a number of this
terrace type form along Dorchester Road and in the surrounding roads; the
Appeal Decision APP/00000/
2
terraces typically have large gabled ends facing the road and a long central
roof ridge. This type of building is the largest of the dwelling types in the
vicinity in terms of its plan form and mass.
4. The appeal proposal is for a two-storey side extension which is set back from
the front elevation of the host dwelling on both ground and first floor. The
roofline of the extension would be at a lower level than the roofline of the host
dwelling, on the other side of the large gable end. This effectively breaks up
the additional mass. A set-back and varied roofline are recognised in the
SPD2 ‘Guide for Designing House Alterations and Extensions’ as a method for
ensuring subservience of side extensions. The side extension is approximately
half the width of the individual host dwelling, and represents a small addition in
terms of the overall scale of the terrace. The materials and fenestration details
are proposed to match the existing dwelling; the windows are of similar design
and proportions, and are aligned with the existing. These elements create a
subservient form of extension, integrating well with the host dwelling.
5. Whilst the extension alters the form of the dwelling, the subservient nature of
the extension leaves the original built form of the dwelling clearly legible; the
uniformity of the housing types in the area is thus not lost. Moreover, other
dwellings in the area have been extended. The appeal proposal would respect
the overall plot pattern, and though a ground floor porch element extends
forward of the front elevation, this is a feature of several dwellings in the area
and does not affect the general building line or pattern of the area.
6. For these reasons, I find that the proposal would respect the features of the
host building and would not harm the character and appearance of the area, or
conflict with policies BSC1 of the Bristol Core Strategy 20111, DM26, DM27 and
DM30 of the Bristol City Council Site Allocations and Development Management
Policies 2014, or the guidance contained in the SPD2 ‘Guide for Designing
House Alterations and Extensions’ 2005.
Kim Langford Tejrar
INSPECTOR
Expert Representation
Don't leave your appeal to chance.
Inspectors are inconsistent. We build a technical defense using precedents from our 182,000+ case archive.
No win, no fee Householder representation — you only pay if you win.