First floor side extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 4 December 2018 by Ben Plenty BSc (Hons) PGDip MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 11th December 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/P0119/D/18/3211650 91 Bradley Road, Patchway BS34 5HS  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 Joe Sutera against the decision of South Gloucestershire Council.  The application Ref PT18/2607/F, dated 31 May 2018, was refused by notice dated 27 July 2018.  The development proposed is a first floor side extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 3. The appeal site consists of a semi-detached house on a corner plot. The local area is predominantly residential and of traditional design. The area mostly consists of semi-detached houses with hipped roofs. Corner plots are generally open, with gaps provided to separate the semi-detached houses. This conveys a sense of spaciousness. The appeal house has been extended previously with a single storey side and front extension which still largely maintains the open character. The appeal site is a prominent corner plot, with exposed side and front elevations. The proposal seeks to add a first floor side extension above the existing extension. This would be almost as wide as the existing house and would follow the first floor front building line. 4. I find that the width of the proposed extension would be a disproportionate addition, as it would unbalance the pair of semi-detached houses. In addition, the proposal would fail to respect the proportions of the existing house or the pair, by not being set back and being of significant width. Moreover, the proposed extension would reduce the openness to the side of the house and extend in a manner which is out of character to the local context. 5. Further, the proposed design includes a window arrangement and a pronounced gable end, elements which would be out of character with the existing house and the surrounding area. I do not consider that conditions in regard to window realignment or hipped roofs (as offered by the appellant) would address the harm that I have identified. Appeal Decision APP/P0119/D/18/3211650 2 6. The appellant draws my attention to an extension at No 88 Bradley Road, suggesting that this establishes a local precedent. However, this house is less prominent, being set back from the highway and amongst a row of houses. Also, it is within part of a row that is set further back than its immediate neighbours (no’s 92 & 90) whilst the actual side extension is significantly narrower than the proposed extension. I also acknowledge that the proposal respects the established building line at this location and would be behind the building line of houses that front onto Worthing Road. However whilst these are positive aspects, they do not override the concerns that I have found in relation to the scale of the proposed extension. 7. I therefore conclude that the proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the local area. The proposal does not accord with Policy CS1, of the South Gloucestershire Local Plan: Core Strategy (Adopted) December 2013, as it would not achieve the highest possible standard of design. Furthermore, the proposal would fail to satisfy Policy PSP38 of the South Gloucestershire Local Plan: Policies, Sites and Places Plan (Adopted) November 2017, which includes the requirement for proposed extensions to respect the design of the surrounding area. Conclusion 8. For the above reasons, and having had regard to all matters before me, the appeal is dismissed. Ben Plenty INSPECTOR