New rear dormer, new roof windows, one and two storey rear extensions, external insulation to side and rear elevations, replacement windows, alterations to front garden to incorporate car parking

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 19 March 2019 by Andrew Dawe BSc(Hons) MSc MPhil MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 5th April 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/Z0116/D/19/3220079 13 Kingsley Road, Cotham, Bristol BS6 6AF • 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 Tom Kaneko against the decision of Bristol City Council. • The application Ref 18/05672/H, dated 26 October 2018, was refused by notice dated 2 January 2019. • The development proposed is new rear dormer, new roof windows, one and two storey rear extensions, external insulation to side and rear elevations, replacement windows, alterations to front garden to incorporate car parking. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for new rear dormer, new roof windows, one and two storey rear extensions, external insulation to side and rear elevations, replacement windows, alterations to front garden to incorporate car parking at 13 Kingsley Road, Cotham, Bristol BS6 6AF in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 18/05672/H, dated 26 October 2018, subject to the following condition: 1) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 100/PL01, 100/PL04, 100/PL05, 100/PL06, 100/PL07, 100/PL08, 100/PL09, 100/PL10, 100/PL11, 100/PL12, 100/PL13, 100/PL14. Main Issue 2. The main issue is whether the proposed development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Cotham and Redland Conservation Area (the CA). Reasons Main issue 3. The site is located in the CA and as such special attention has to be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA. The CA is characterised by a variety of designs, types and sizes of buildings. Those relating to the part of Kingsley Road, north of the dividing railway line, largely and characteristically comprise attractive traditional stone faced three storey semi-detached dwellings of similar design, of which No 13 is one. 4. The rear elevation of No 13, whilst visible from the rears of properties on Zetland Road and the rear gardens of those either side, is not clearly visible Appeal Decision APP/Z0116/D/19/3220079 2 from public vantage points within the CA, other than to some extent likely from passing trains to the south. Despite the significant degree of consistency in the design of the rear elevations of Nos 9-15 Kingsley Road, from those vantage points they are also seen in the context of the differently designed rear elevations of those nearby properties relating to the more modern No 7 and those properties fronting Zetland Road. A large corrugated metal clad building immediately adjacent to the rear of the site, is also a dominating feature of that backland area. 5. Those aspects of the proposal comprising the dormer, new roof windows, the single storey extension, the external insulation, replacement windows, and alterations to the front garden would be relatively modest and discrete in relation to the house as a whole and so unlikely to be dominating features. I also agree with the Council that the proposed removal of a chimney stack, to be replaced with solar panels, would be insufficient basis on its own to warrant dismissing the appeal given the context of others that have also not been retained within the street. 6. My focus, as was the Council’s, is therefore on the proposed two storey extension and side gate. I have also taken into consideration that there is extant planning permission for the proposed renovation of the property including two storey rear extension and loft conversion with dormer extension to the rear. Although I have determined this appeal proposal on its own merits, that other scheme is nevertheless a material factor in terms of being a potential fall-back position. 7. The two-storey extension would differ from the more traditional design of the two-storey rear element of the extant planning permission and would disrupt the traditional fenestration design of the existing rear elevation and the degree of consistency in the appearance of the rears of Nos 9-15 generally. However, those elevations are of a simple appearance with little additional articulation. The proposed two-storey extension would have simple lines and modest depth, with timber cladding likely to have a fairly soft appearance, albeit not a characteristic material of those existing properties. The top part, despite being slightly above the second floor window cill level would also be partially transparent due to its open jointed design, and the proposed large window would be partially obscured by cladding. That upper level extension, despite its modern design and different fenestration size and design, would therefore be likely to complement the existing simple traditional design of that rear elevation without dominating it or those of the four properties generally. 8. Furthermore, the two-storey extension would not be clearly visible from public vantage points, other than the railway to some extent, and so would not materially affect the streetscene. From the rear it would also be seen to some extent in the varied context of those other surrounding backland features referred to above, relating to the more modern No 7, the Zetland Road properties and the large building to the rear of the site. The presence of trees within and adjacent to the back gardens of Zetland Road properties would also be likely to soften, to varying degrees, the extent to which the extension would be seen from those neighbouring properties. 9. I have also had regard to a concern raised about the visual effect of the proposed extensions were the timber cladding to be removed in the future. In this respect, I have no basis to consider that such removal would be a Appeal Decision APP/Z0116/D/19/3220079 3 likelihood and have determined the appeal on the basis of the submitted plans and details. 10. The proposed side gate would significantly differ in design to that existing and as would remain at No 11, the two currently forming a single structure spanning the width of the side passage of each property. However, whilst higher than the existing gate it would not be substantially so, and the high degree of transparency provided by the railings would be likely to soften its appearance to a degree. I have also had regard to the lack of consistency in the nature, position and design of side gates relating to those other nearby similar properties in the street, albeit that they are generally set further back and of more modest proportions. Furthermore, it would remain set back a similar distance from the front of the house as existing. For these reasons, it would be a subservient feature of the property that would not jar within the streetscene. Additionally, due to that degree of set-back, it would be screened from view by intervening buildings on the approaches to the site and so would not dominate the general streetscene. 11. For the above reasons, the proposed development would preserve the character and appearance of the CA. As such, in respect of this issue, it would accord with policies BCS21 and BCS22 of the Bristol Development Framework Core Strategy and policies DM26, DM27 and DM30 of the Bristol Local Plan Site Allocations and Development Management Policies which together, amongst other things, require new development to safeguard or enhance heritage assets including CAs, deliver high quality urban design, contribute towards local character and distinctiveness, and for extensions to respect the design and character of the host building, its curtilage and the broader street scene. It would also accord with the National Planning Policy Framework which in sections 12 and 16 respectively relates to achieving well-designed places and conserving and enhancing the historic environment. Other matters 12. The proposed single storey extension would project alongside the boundary with No 15, albeit set slightly away from it. However, the depth of projection would only slightly encroach beyond a line drawn horizontally at 45 degrees from the centre of the neighbouring basement patio doors. Together with the single storey height and small set-off from the boundary, those combined factors would be likely to prevent any harmful loss of sunlight and daylight to that property as a result of the proposal. 13. In terms of the living conditions of the occupiers of No 11, the proposed extension would be set noticeably off the boundary. Furthermore, whilst the two-storey element would be slightly higher than that of the extant scheme, the reduced and fairly modest depth would be likely to prevent a harmful loss of outlook from No 11. The flat roof of that two-storey element is shown on the plans for use as a small garden, but without doorway access. It is therefore unlikely that it would be utilised as an outdoor amenity space for prospective residents, particularly with only the limited surrounding cladding height for protection against falling. In any case, the modest size of that space would be unlikely to attract a level of use that would cause such overlooking as to amount to a harmful loss of privacy to those neighbouring residents. Appeal Decision APP/Z0116/D/19/3220079 4 Conditions 14. The Council has suggested two conditions that it considers would be appropriate were I minded to allow the appeal. I have considered these in the light of advice in the Government’s Planning Practice Guidance (PPG). The suggested standard time condition is not required in this case as I saw that the development concerned has commenced in so far as the dormer is under construction. However, for the avoidance of doubt, and in the interests of proper planning and preserving the character and appearance of the CA, a condition requiring that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans is required. Conclusion 15. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. Andrew Dawe INSPECTOR