Two-storey side extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 17 January 2019 by G Powys Jones MSc FRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of Sta te for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 5th February 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/Z0116/D/18/3217519 2 Arrowfield Close, Whitchurch, Bristol, BS14 0UQ • 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 Ross Caltabiano against the decision of Bristol City Council. • The application Ref 18/04828/H, dated 24 August 2018, was refused by notice dated 6 November 2018. • The development proposed is described as a two-storey side extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary matters 2. The Council contends that insufficient information has been submitted to ascertain if the proposal would have an acceptable impact on trees. The appellant has confirmed that a cherry tree would be removed. 3. A previous planning permission for a two-storey extension was granted in 2013 (Ref 13/04501/H). This is said to be a similar extension to that subject of this appeal albeit that the current proposal is approximately 700mm wider. The Council treated the previous permission as having expired. The appellant alleges that the Council mistakenly assumed this to be the case, and says that the development was lawfully commenced before its expiration. He therefore considers this to be a significant material consideration, in that the development subject of the previous permission may be lawfully completed, and this represents his fall-back position in the event of his appeal failing. 4. Documentation has been produced in an attempt to persuade me that the previous permission was lawfully commenced. There were no convincing signs on site to indicate this was the case. I saw that a single-storey rear extension had been built, but as I understand it, this was subject to a ‘prior approval’ application, and the extension was subsequently built as permitted development. The Building Regulation documentation and copy emails submitted are inconclusive as to whether a lawful start was made on the two- storey extension. 5. Accordingly, the evidence does not convince me that planning permission Ref 13/04501/H was lawfully implemented. Moreover, I do not consider that a householder appeal is the appropriate vehicle to test this matter, given that the appellant would be entitled to apply for a certificate of lawfulness, where the evidence on both sides could be more appropriately examined and tested. Appeal Decision APP/Z0116/D/18/3217519 2 6. Nevertheless, I acknowledge, as does the Council, the existence of the 2013 permission as part of the planning history of the site. This attracts due weight. 7. The Council says that new policy has been introduced since the previous decision, in particular policy DM30 of the Bristol Local Plan – Site Allocations and Development Management Policies (Adopted July 2014). This policy is specifically directed to ‘Alterations to Existing Buildings’ and provides design and other guidance. I note, however, that the Council also relies on policy BCS 21 of the Core Strategy (CS) and the Supplementary Planning Document No 2 – a Guide for Designing House Alterations (SPD). Both documents were in existence when the previous permission was granted. Main issue 8. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property and its surroundings. Reasons 9. The appeal property is a relatively modern, detached dwelling sited at the junction of Arrowfield Close and Holbeach Way. Its front elevation faces into the Close, whilst its gabled side elevation faces Holbeach Way. A generous green swathe, part of the original estate’s layout design, separates the gabled elevation from the back of the footway. Whilst owned by the appellant, this green strip contributes towards the sense of openness perceived at the junction. 10. The proposal, if implemented, would result in the dwelling being extended sideways - well into the green swathe. The two-storey element of the proposal would be longer than previously permitted, and would extend to within about a metre of the footway. Unlike the previous proposal, the single storey rear extension, which did not exist when the previous permission was granted, would also be extended sideways. The description of the proposal in the application form omits reference to the proposed single storey extension and is therefore misleading. Taken as a whole, however, the extension proposed now is significantly bulkier than that granted permission in 2013. 11. The extension’s design acceptably matches that of the existing dwelling, but by reason of its prominent position and bulk, the development as a whole would prove visually incongruous in the street scene, jutting awkwardly into a green landscaped area, materially harming the sense of openness currently perceived at this junction. 12. I therefore conclude that the development would harm the character and appearance of its surroundings in clear conflict with those provisions of policy DM30 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies (DMP), directed to promoting high quality urban design, and that alterations to existing property should respect the form and character of the broader street scene. 13. All other matters referred to in the representations have been taken into consideration but no other matter raised is of such strength or significance as to outweigh the considerations that led me to my conclusions. G Powys Jones INSPECTOR Appeal Decision APP/Z0116/D/18/3217519 3