Erection of roof extension to front
📊
See the success rate & inspector analytics
Free to view — just create an account, no payment needed.
Sign Up FreeTechnical Issues Heatmap
Extensions
Heritage & Conservation
Character & Appearance
Inspector’s Reasoning
Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 10 July 2024
by D Cramond BSc MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Decision date: 8th August 2024
Appeal Ref: APP/Z0116/D/24/3344110
31 Sea Walls Road, Bristol, BS9 1PG
• 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 David Johnson against the decision of Bristol City Council.
• The application Reference is 23/01478/H.
• The development proposed is the erection of roof extension to front.
Decision
1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of
roof extension to front at 31 Sea Walls Road, Bristol, BS9 1PG in accordance
with the terms of the application, Ref 23/01478/H, subject to the following
conditions:
1. The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years
from the date of this decision.
2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with
the following approved plans: Location Plan, Block Plan (31/SR/SP/11),
Proposed Side Elevations A&B, Section A-A, Proposed Second Floor Plan
(Jan 2024) & Proposed Front Elevation (Jan 2024).
Costs
2. An application for costs has been made by the Appellant against the Council.
This application is the subject of a separate decision.
Main Issue
3. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance
of the host property and the locality.
Reasons
Character and appearance
4. The appeal property is a relatively modern two storey house in the central
position of a visually low-key terrace of three. The locality is an attractive
one of established residential character, verdancy and a range of dwelling
scales, ages and designs which all come together to be generally pleasing on
the eye. The proposal is as described above and is effectively a flat roofed
dormer.
Appeal Decision APP/Z0116/D/24/3344110
2
5. The site lies within the Downs Conservation Area. There is a duty imposed by
Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act
1990 requiring decision makers to have special regard to the desirability of
preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a Conservation Area.
This is reflected within Policy BCS22 of Bristol Core Strategy (2011) (CS) and
Policy DM31 in the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies
(2014) (DMP).
6. The Council is concerned that the front dormer’s bulk, form, massing and
design would lead to a prominent and incongruous feature within the
immediate and wider Conservation Area context.
7. However, I would read the dormer as a relatively subtle extension to the
property. It is suitably modest in scale and sited well clear of the ridge,
eaves and roof sides. External materials would match existing finishes and
the glazing configuration would reflect what is below in terms of scale and
disposition. The planned feature would bring symmetry to the terrace which,
in any event, does not feature strongly from any viewpoints. The
characteristic verdant setting would remain and, while front dormers may not
feature strongly locally, the variety in roof forms, heights and finishes would
comfortably absorb this feature in character and visual terms without any
sense of it being alien. Furthermore, I am satisfied that this proposal would
not create a precedent for front dormers as each case would have to be
determined on its own specific merits.
8. Given the nature of the scheme I conclude that the proposal would not run
contrary to the aims of S72(1) of the Act and CS Policy BCS22 and DMP Policy
DM31. Additionally, the proposal would not conflict with CS Policy BCS21 and
DMP Policies DM26, DM27 and DM30. Taken together and amongst other
matters these polices call for well-designed development, suitably detailed
and sympathetic to context and streetscene. The scheme would also not run
contrary to parallel objectives of the guidance within the Council’s SPD2.
Conditions
9. The Council suggests the standard commencement condition along with a
requirement for works to be carried out in accordance with listed, approved,
plans. I would agree with this to provide certainty. The Council also
suggests a condition relating to matching materials but as the application
makes this commitment, I would see this as unnecessary.
Overall conclusion
10. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal proposal would not
have unacceptable adverse effects on the character and appearance of the
host property or the locality. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
D Cramond
INSPECTOR
£
Costs decision section
Costs Decision
by D Cramond BSc MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 8th august 2024
Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/Z0116/D/24/3344110
31 Sea Walls Road, Bristol, BS9 1PG
• The application is made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, sections
78, 322 and Schedule 6, and the Local Government Act 1972, section 250(5).
• The application is made by Mr David Johnson for an award of costs against the
decision of Bristol City Council.
• The appeal was made against the refusal of an application, Ref 23/01478/H, which
sought planning permission for the erection of roof extension to front.
Decision
1. The application for an award of costs is refused.
Reasons
2. Planning Practice Guidance (guidance) advises that, irrespective of the outcome
of the appeal, costs may only be awarded against a party who has behaved
unreasonably and thereby caused the party applying for costs to incur
unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal process. Unreasonable
behaviour may be either procedural or substantive.
3. The Appellant argues that there has indeed been unreasonable behaviour by
the Council. The Appellant cites the Council’s lack of response over a long
period before, at short notice, indicating that the application was to be refused.
The Appellant was given only three working days to respond and did raise
concerns with the process which should have led the Council to an informed
decision. However, the Council appeared to be entrenched in its position.
Furthermore, the Council did not have due regard to its own design guidance
and provided no detailed evidence within the Officer Report in relation to
matters such as consistency with other decisions and the planning history of
this specific site with its approved alterations scheme.
4. The Council has not commented on the Appellant’s claim.
5. The general principle embodied within the guidance is that the parties involved
should normally meet their own expenses. I have carefully considered the
matter of a full or, indeed, a partial, award of costs.
6. I recognise that an appeal process can be time and fee consuming and that
professional assistance comes at a cost. It is clearly regrettable when an
applicant feels that the processing of a planning application could have been
dealt with better. However, I am not persuaded that actions of the Council
during that period directly lead to the appeal.
Costs Decision APP/Z0116/D/24/3344110
2
7. It appears to me that the Appellant places too great an emphasis on other
decisions reached locally within what is an extremely varied area. Similarly,
the historic approval for works at the appeal site is markedly different from
that now proposed and should not be overly relied upon. Circumstances do
differ in individual physical attributes and in applicable policy circumstances. In
any event this case had to be dealt with on its own merits. I note the point
about the Design Guidance and its content but such publications cannot be
expected to cover every eventuality. An example within an SPD is not
necessarily transferable everywhere.
8. I would agree that the determination delay is regrettable, although
unfortunately not uncommon. While perhaps of little comfort, the Appellant
would always have had the right to appeal against non-determination. Once it
did deal with matters, I would assess that the Council has given clear reasons
for the judgement it reached. I surmise that the Council dealt with the plans
and information before them as presented within a professionally prepared
planning application, considered all other material considerations, and reached
a not wholly unsurprising or illogical decision on the scheme. This scheme was
judged on its own merits albeit there was mention of the fear of precedent.
The refusal reason is clear and sets out unequivocally the concerns of the
Council and cross-refers to applicable policies.
9. As it happens, I do not agree with the conclusion reached by the Council on the
scheme. However, I would nevertheless defend its wording and assertions in
the round as not being unsubstantiated and its actions throughout the planning
assessment process as not being irrational.
10.I therefore find that unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary expense,
as described in the planning guidance, has not been demonstrated.
D Cramond
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.