Ground floor rear extension/reorganisation to create open plan kitchen dining space opening up to the rear garden. Loft conversion to create new bedroom and ensuite bathroom. Reorganisation and renovation of first floor rooms and relocation of first floor bathroom. Replacement of existing mono-pitch bathroom roof with a flat roof. Replacement of rear facing windows of property and refinishing of render on rear facade to include external insulation backing

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 30 June 2026 by R Cahalane BA(Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 21 July 2026 Appeal Ref: 6009650 32 Falmouth Road, Bishopston, Bristol City BS7 8PU • 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 Úna Breathnach Hifearnáin against the decision of Bristol City Council. • The application Ref is 25/13528/H. • The development proposed was described as: “Ground floor rear extension/reorganisation to create open plan kitchen dining space opening up to the rear garden. Loft conversion to create new bedroom and ensuite bathroom. Reorganisation and renovation of first floor rooms and relocation of first floor bathroom. Replacement of existing mono-pitch bathroom roof with a flat roof. Replacement of rear facing windows of property and refinishing of render on rear facade to include external insulation backing.” Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed insofar as it relates to the ground floor rear extension/reorganisation to create open plan kitchen dining space opening up to the rear garden. 2. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted insofar as it relates to the rear roof extension for loft conversion, replacement of existing mono-pitch bathroom roof with a flat roof, replacement of rear facing windows of property and refinishing of render on rear facade to include external insulation backing, and new outbuilding to rear at 32 Falmouth Road, Bishopston, Bristol City BS7 8PU in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/13528/H, and the plans submitted with it, so far as relevant to that part of the development hereby permitted, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule. Background and Main Issue 3. As set out in my above decision and in the banner heading, planning permission was sought for various forms of development within the appeal site (No 32). In my decision, I have utilised the description of development from the decision notice rather than the application form, as it refers to a rear roof extension and a rear outbuilding that are both clearly included in the proposed plans before me. 4. The Council’s reason for refusal however relates to the impact of the proposed ground floor rear extension on No 34 Falmouth Road. This element of the appeal proposal is clearly severable from the rest of the development proposed, as it is physically and functionally independent. Therefore, under section 79(1)(b) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, I have the power to issue a split decision. 5. Having regard to all the above, the main issue of this appeal is the effect of the proposed ground floor rear extension on the living conditions of No 34, with particular regard to daylight, sunlight and outlook. Appeal Decision 6009650 2 Reasons 6. No 32 comprises a two-story mid-terraced dwelling within an urban residential area. Along with the surrounding dwellings, it has a narrow plot width, and there is a somewhat varied pattern of rear extensions. The proposed ground floor rear extension would infill a significant proportion of the space immediately beyond the inset rear elevation of 32, and the adjoining rear elevation of No 34 which contains a set of glazed ground floor French doors. 7. The appellant has provided images of No 32 to illustrate the existing ground shadow and what is described as the proposed development's minimal effect on this. Whilst these images represent 21 June and 21 December at 9am, 12 noon and 3pm, they do not include the late afternoon and early evening periods during the summer months. Owing to the orientation of the French doors on No 34’s inset rear elevation, and surrounding built form, that glazed feature serving a habitable room would receive, and would be significantly reliant upon, sunlight during summertime late afternoon and early evening periods. 8. The proposed ground floor extension’s roof would have a very shallow pitch. I also accept that the exiting orientation and relationship of buildings would already create a relatively contained and restricted outlook, as well as loss of sunlight, for the occupiers of No 34. 9. However, this extension would protrude noticeably above the existing side boundary wall and fence. It would also project significantly beyond the neighbouring French doors and would create a tunnelling effect, given the nearby positioning of No 34’s two storey rear outshot beyond the other side of the French doors. Even when accounting for the approximately 400mm proposed set in distance from the side boundary, this extension would result in further overshadowing of the abovementioned glazing on No 34, and would exacerbate the loss of sunlight experienced during the late afternoon and early evening summertime periods. 10. The area beyond the rear inset elevation of No 34 is narrow and small relative to the garden area beyond its rearmost elevation. It thus does not appear to form No 34’s main rear garden area. However, the extent of the proposed extension that would be visible beyond the French doors and above the side boundary would appear and feel oppressive and overbearing. 11. Outlook from the two side windows of No 34’s outshot facing the proposal would also be adversely affected, given the close proximity. The extent of this impact would significantly harm the living conditions of current and future occupiers of No 34. The proposed set in distance from the side boundary would not mitigate this adverse impact. 12. Within an urban context, a degree of enclosure and mutual impact between properties is inherent and to be expected. However, for the above reasons, I conclude that the proposed ground floor rear extension would materially and adversely harm the living conditions of No 34, with particular regard to daylight, sunlight and outlook. This harm goes beyond typical impacts or a moderate change in outlook and light, and would cross the threshold into unacceptable harm. 13. In these respects, this element of the appeal proposal conflicts with Policy BCS21 of the Bristol Development Framework Core Strategy (BDFCS) (adopted 2011) and Policies DM27 and DM30 of the Bristol Local Plan - Site Allocations and Appeal Decision 6009650 3 Development Management Policies (BLP) (adopted 2014). Collectively, these policies require, among other things, development (including extensions and alterations to existing buildings) to create healthy places, safeguard the amenity of neighbouring occupiers, and create a high-quality environment for future occupiers. 14. Guidance contained within the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document Number 2 - A Guide for Designing House Alterations and Extensions (SPD) (2005) includes a 45-degree test, used as a rule of thumb in assessing proposals for rear extensions. This advises that such extensions should not cross a 45-degree line (on plan and elevation) projected from an adjoining neighbour’s nearest ground floor habitable room window which is perpendicular to the proposed extension. The reference point is the centre of the neighbour’s window to the extension. 15. The proposed ground floor extension would fail the above 45-degree test. Whilst the SPD forms guidance rather than development plan policy, I nonetheless find it to be a useful reference in assessing potential overshadowing and overbearing effects. For the above reasons, the proposed ground floor rear extension would cause excessive overshadowing and an overbearing visual impact upon No 34. There would thus be actual conflict with the SPD guidance in these regards. Other Matters 16. The proposed replacement of the existing first floor rear mono-pitch bathroom roof with a flat roof would result in the wall facing No 34 becoming taller. However, the separation distance from the windows and the garden area of No 34 would be sufficient to avoid adverse harm to living conditions. The proposed second floor roof extension would be contained within the existing main roof form and would thus also not lead to a harmful degree of loss of light or outlook. 17. Reference is made to local precedent of permitted schemes, and I was able to view the rear extension of No 28 from the rear garden of 32. However, that example has a different roof form to the appeal proposal, and the evidence before me does not set out how the neighbouring layout of windows and outdoor areas compares to the relationship between No 34 and No 32. It has not been adequately demonstrated that that example, along with the others in Falmouth Road cited by the appellant, represent inconsistent decision making on the part of the Council. Such examples thus do not justify allowing the appeal for the proposed ground floor rear extension. 18. The Council has raised no objections in respect of the impact of the overall appeal proposal on the character and appearance of No 32 and the surrounding area. Following my site visit, I have no reason to disagree. Compliance with the development plan in this regard however neither weighs in favour nor against allowing the appeal in respect of the proposed ground floor rear extension. 19. The appellant is aggrieved with the way the Council determined the application over a period of approximately seven months. The appellant contends that no opportunity was provided to explore amendments in respect of the proposed ground floor rear extension, even though amendments were requested and made in respect of the proposed rear roof extension and loft conversion. 20. I appreciate how the above could be frustrating for the appellant. However, I am dutybound to make my own assessment of the proposal based on the relevant policy, evidence and site-specific circumstances before me. This matter has therefore had little bearing on my determination of this appeal. Appeal Decision 6009650 4 Planning Balance 21. I have found that the proposed ground floor rear extension would adversely harm the living conditions of No 34 in respect of daylight, sunlight and outlook, contrary to Policy BCS21 of the BDFCS and Policies DM27 and DM30 of the BLP. The extent of this harm amounts to conflict with the development plan as a whole. 22. The ground floor rear extension would provide improved living accommodation for a growing young family who have recently welcomed their first child. This would be an efficient use of an existing residential property, including making required repairs and improvements to energy efficiency. However, as a matter of planning judgement, such benefits would not outweigh the long-term adverse impact on the living conditions of No 34 that would arise after its construction. 23. Notwithstanding my above findings, the rear roof extension for loft conversion, replacement of existing mono-pitch bathroom roof with a flat roof, replacement of rear facing windows of property and refinishing of render on rear facade to include external insulation backing, and new outbuilding to the rear would comply with the relevant requirements of the development plan, and would not cause any material harm(s) when considered in isolation. There is thus no justification for me to withhold granting planning permission for these elements of the scheme. Conditions 24. Condition 1 is necessary in the interests of certainty. Condition 2 is necessary to clarify the approved plans. Conditions 3, 4 and 5 are necessary in the interests of the character and appearance of the area. Condition 6 is necessary in the interests of the living conditions of surrounding properties. Any future use of the outbuilding for a self-contained residential purpose separate from the use of No 32 would require additional planning permission in any event. It is thus not necessary to restrict the use of that outbuilding by means of condition. Conclusion 25. Having had regard to the development plan as a whole and all other material considerations raised, I dismiss the appeal in respect of the proposed ground floor rear extension. 26. However, I allow the appeal in respect of the proposed rear roof extension for loft conversion, replacement of existing mono-pitch bathroom roof with a flat roof, replacement of rear facing windows of property and refinishing of render on rear facade to include external insulation backing, and new outbuilding to rear. R Cahalane INSPECTOR Appeal Decision 6009650 5 Schedule of 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 plans (only insofar as they relate to the rear roof extension for loft conversion, replacement of existing mono-pitch bathroom roof with a flat roof, replacement of rear facing windows of property and refinishing of render on rear facade to include external insulation backing, and new outbuilding to rear): Drawing Nos PP-002 Rev B; PP-004 Rev A; PP-005 Rev B; PP-006 Rev B. 3. The external materials of the development hereby permitted shall be as stated in the application form dated 11 August 2025. 4. No development of the rear outbuilding hereby permitted shall commence until a scheme of details of replacement trees to be planted on site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. 5. The scheme of details approved under condition No 4 shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding season following the completion of the outbuilding; and any trees which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the outbuilding die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species. 6. The first floor flat green roof area of the development hereby permitted shall not be used as a balcony, roof garden or similar amenity area. ***End of Schedule***