Erection of a front porch

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 18 December 2024 By G Powys Jones FRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 3 January 2025 Appeal Ref: APP/P0119/D/24/3348143 2 The Avenue, Little Stoke, Bristol, BS34 6LJ • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr M Fullbrook-Smith against the decision of South Gloucestershire Council. • The application Ref is P24/00470/HH. • The development proposed is the erection of a front porch. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for the erection of a front porch at 2 The Avenue, Little Stoke, Bristol, BS34 6LJ in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref P24/00470/HH, 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: the location plan; Drawing Ref 2409/01; /02 and /04. 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those of the existing dwelling. Main Issue 2. This is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property and its surroundings. Reasons 3. The appeal property is a semi-detached dwelling set in a short cul-de-sac leading from Queensway. Similar semi-detached properties front both sides of the cul-de- sac, but a terrace is evident at its head. The appeal property is the first on the right as one enters The Avenue, but its front elevation is screened on entering the cul- de-sac by a pair of recently erected dwellings, known as 7a & &b Queensway. The pair has been built extremely close to the appeal property’s side elevation, and the southernmost dwelling of the pair projects forward of the appeal property’s front elevation. 4. The intention is to build the porch so that it aligns with and be set alongside that part of the newly constructed dwelling that projects forward of the appeal property’s front elevation. The porch would thus be effectively screened in views from Queensway. It would, however, be seen from points within the cul-de-sac. Appeal Decision APP/P0119/D/24/3348143 2 5. The Council refer to the guidance and advice on front extensions provided in its SPG1, and considers that the proposal would conflict with elements of that guidance resulting in a structure of a bulky and incongruous appearance harming the appearance of the host property and the local scene. 6. I share the view that the porch would be larger than is normally the case, but that does not render it disproportionate. It is reasonably well-designed with a pitched roof and would be built in materials matching the host property. Its scale and size closely resemble those of another front extension built virtually opposite the site at 3 The Avenue, and another attached to part of the terrace at the end of the cul-de- sac. It would not therefore prove an uncharacteristic form of development in this small cul-de-sac. The appeal property’s front garden is given over to car parking, being screened on both sides by timber fencing. In view of the fencing and because of the screening afforded by new development the visual effects of the development would be limited. 7. In conclusion, I find the proposed development would sit appropriately in its visual context without harming the character and appearance of the host property or its surroundings. According I find that no conflict arises with those provisions of Policy CS1 of the South Gloucestershire Local Plan Core Strategy and Policy PSP38 of the South Gloucestershire Local Plan Policies, Sites and Places Plan directed to achieving good quality design and maintaining local distinctiveness. Conditions 8. As suggested by the Council conditions shall be imposed to ensure, in the interests of certainty, that the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans, and to ensure matching materials in the interests of amenity. Other matters 9. All other matters raised have been taken into account, but no other matter is of such significance as to outweigh those considerations that led to my conclusions. 10. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. G Powys Jones INSPECTOR 1 Supplementary Planning Guidance: Householder Design Guide.