Alteration to planning permission ref: 18/03714/H to include a juliet balcony with full height window to first floor bedroom

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 4 May 2019 by A. J. Boughton MA (IPSD) Dip.Arch. Dip.(Conservation) RIBA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 10 July 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/Z0116/D/19/3222356 1 Trentham Close, St. Werburghs Bristol BS2 9XF • 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 Rob Burrows against the decision of Bristol City Council. • The application Ref 18/05783/H, dated 2 November 2018, was refused by notice dated 12 December 2018. • The development proposed is the alteration to planning permission ref: 18/03714/H to include a juliet balcony with full height window to first floor bedroom. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for alteration to planning permission ref: 18/03714/H to include a juliet balcony with full height window to first floor bedroom at 1 Trentham Close, St.Werburghs Bristol BS2 9XF in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref:18/05783/H, dated 2 November 2018, 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: 046-P-010A (rev 01), 046-P-020A (rev 01), 046-P-030A (rev 01) Preliminary Matters 2. For clarity I have slightly amended the description of development appearing on the application form. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area with particular regard to streetscene. Reasons Character and Appearance 4. The proposal intends to change a first-floor bedroom window within an approved, but yet-to-be constructed, extension to a full-height opening window of similar width together with externally-fixed protective railings. Appeal Decision APP/Z0116/D/19/3222356 2 5. The subject property sits within an area of high-density low-rise housing. Comprised largely of twentieth-century two-storey housing pairs in terraced blocks, the subject property is at the end of such a block of 41. The layout of the estate is influenced, distinctively, by ‘Radburn’ principles such that the ‘fronts’ of the dwellings are accessed by shared footways through greened frontages whereas the access streets serve what might usually be regarded as the rear, more private, outdoor spaces. 6. In consequence the street scene is dominated by high enclosing walls, fences, and other ancillary structures, creating a cluttered and untidy appearance. This is accentuated by cumulative changes to boundary treatments and garaging together with disorderly parking resulting from the layout concept. 7. I note the comments of the City Design Group, however, to my mind the defining characteristic of the area is the Radburn-derived layout, whatever its faults, rather than the house type itself which is similar to those widely found in many contexts. The extension permitted responds appropriately with regard to building form but would nevertheless alter a primary feature of the layout, the terrace block. Whilst what is approved retains consistency in the elevational treatment of upper floors, my assessment indicates that the proposed change to the bedroom window (which still retains the overall rhythm of the fenestration approved) has no relevance to the character of the estate layout nor would it be unduly prominent in the overall street scene. The proposal would not, therefore, impact negatively on the overall character and appearance of the area. 8. I therefore conclude that the proposal would not conflict with the principles set out in Policy BCS21 of the Bristol Core Strategy (2011) for positive contributions to urban design, nor with Policies DM26 or DM30 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Local Plan (2014)(SADM) which, taken together (amongst other things) require development to respect the local character, distinctiveness and reflect local characteristics. Policy DM27 does not add to the Council’s case as it addresses layout and form, already settled in permission 18/03714H. For the same reason I find no conflict with supplementary planning document SPD2 “A Guide for Designing House Alterations and Extensions” (2005). The proposal would, therefore, accord with the development plan taken as a whole. Conditions 9. Only a ‘plans’ condition is necessary to ensure the nature of variation to the approved extension is identified, other matters being addressed by the approval for the extension itself. Conclusion 10. The appeal is allowed. INSPECTOR 1 Within a row of 8 to one side of Trentham Close - a cul-de-sac .