For the removal of existing garage, construction of 2-storey side extension and single-storey rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 21 August 2026 by N Perrins MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 28 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6013359 1 East Priory Close, Henleaze, Bristol BS9 4DF • 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 Jennifer Claire Hann against the decision of Bristol City Council. • The application Ref is 26/10307/H. • The development proposed is for the removal of existing garage, construction of 2-storey side extension and single-storey rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was updated on 17 August 2026. I am satisfied, however, that the relevant policy position for this appeal is not materially different and that its publication has not prejudiced any party. I have also taken the current version of the Framework into account in reaching my decision. Main Issues 3. The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on (i) the character and appearance of the area, (ii) the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties on Priory Court Road, with particular regard to outlook, enclosure and daylight, and (iii) trees in and around the site. Reasons Character and appearance 4. The appeal site is a two-storey, semi-detached house within an estate of similar dwellings. The area has a broadly consistent planned character, defined by pairs of semi-detached houses with mostly two-storey bay windows. A number of two- storey side extensions and roof additions are nevertheless evident, including on East Priory Close itself. I have assessed the proposal in the context of the street as it now exists, while having regard to the estate's underlying planned form. 5. The Council's Supplementary Planning Document Number 2: A Guide for Designing House Alterations and Extensions 2005 (SPD2) advises that side extensions to semi-detached houses should be subservient to the existing house, in order to maintain the architectural integrity of the property, the balance of the pair Appeal Decision 6013359 2 and the character of the street. It identifies setting the extension back from the front wall of the house and stepping down the roof ridge height as the means of achieving this, giving a minimum set-back of 1 metre as a guide but no figure for the ridge. I have treated the set-back figure as guidance rather than an inflexible requirement and have assessed whether the proposal would achieve subservience when considered as a whole. I note that SPD2's illustrations show acceptable solutions in which the ground floor is not set back but with subservience being achieved instead by recessing the first floor above a pre-existing garage or by a catslide roof, neither of which is proposed by the appeal scheme. 6. The extension proposed here would be set back by only around 0.2 metres across both ground and first floors. That is a significant departure from SPD2's guide and would be almost imperceptible in the street scene. The appellant contends that subservience is achieved overall through the combination of the extension's narrow width, boundary gap, and the 0.6m drop in ridge height. I acknowledge that a lower ridge line is a positive feature that reduces roof bulk. However, in visual terms, the front set-back and the ridge set-down perform distinct roles. While the stepped ridge affects the upper roof profile, the front set-back breaks the principal building line and provides vertical articulation. As a result, despite the lowered ridge, the front elevation would still read visually as a continuous widening of the host facade rather than a distinctly subservient element. 7. The proposed windows would be simple white uPVC casements whose size, proportions and position would bear no meaningful relationship to those of the host dwelling. Those in the side extension’s frontage would also sit at different levels from the host’s openings and omit the top-lights found in its front windows, further highlighting their poor relationship to the host. SPD2 advises that windows in an extension should generally match or respect those of the existing building; those proposed would do neither. 8. Taken together, the window design and lack of subservience would make the side extension appear notably incongruous with the host property. It would also diminish the role of the two-storey bay window as the principal feature of the frontage and, ultimately, disrupt the balance of the semi-detached pair. 9. I have had regard to the other properties in the close with two-storey side extensions. From the information before me and observations from my site inspection, those at Nos. 6 and 7 feature distinct, substantial front set-backs that ensure clear subservience. No. 4 was permitted with a shallow set-back of approximately 0.25 metres although has a much lower ridge drop than proposed here. Furthermore, No. 4 maintains horizontal window alignment with its host, whereas the appeal scheme compounds its 0.2m set-back with discordant window levels and detailing. No. 10 opposite has no set-back, although in the absence of planning history setting out the circumstances of its approval, it attracts limited weight as an indication of how current policy and guidance has been applied. 10. The previous planning decisions therefore do not justify the appeal proposal. In contrast to those other examples, it would result in a jarring form of development that fails to achieve subservience or visual integration with its host property. 11. The Council also considers the appeal site particularly prominent because it is elevated and visible from Priory Court Road. I agree that it can be seen from in front of Nos. 29 and 31 and, from further along the road, within wider views of the Appeal Decision 6013359 3 close. However, because the close is set back, these are normal backdrop views in which other alterations and development are also visible behind the appeal site as the land rises. I therefore do not regard the site as materially more sensitive or exposed than other altered dwellings nearby. The principal concern is, therefore, how the extension would relate to its host dwelling and semi-detached pair when viewed from within East Priory Close. For the reasons given, that relationship would cause unacceptable harm to the character of the close in this respect. 12. The Council raised no objection to the single-storey rear extension and nothing I have seen leads me to a different view of this part of the proposal. However, the application falls to be determined as made and the two elements form a single scheme which I have assessed as a whole. 13. Drawing these matters together, the two-storey side extension would not be subservient to the host dwelling, and together with its poorly related window design would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the street scene. The proposal therefore conflicts with Policy BCS21 of the Bristol Development Framework Core Strategy 2011 (CS), Policies DM26, DM27 and DM30 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Local Plan 2014 (DMP), and with the guidance in SPD2. The proposal would also conflict with Policy DP3 of the Framework, which requires that development should respond to its context, so that they integrate with and enhance their surroundings. Living conditions 14. The Council accepts that no harmful overlooking would arise, with the ground floor side windows screened by the boundary fence and the second-storey side window shown as obscure-glazed and non-opening. I agree, and the main issue with neighbouring living conditions is limited to whether there would be an overbearing impact and enclosure to the rear gardens of the adjacent properties on Priory Court Road. 15. Both parties approach that issue through SPD2's numerical guidance. However, the cited 12 metre figure is drawn from SPD2's privacy guidance, applying where habitable room windows face the end wall of a house, and the 1 metre figure concerns gaps between buildings and the terracing effect of side extensions on the street. Neither sets a threshold for overbearing impact, on which SPD2 says only that extensions should not be overbearing. That the proposal exceeds the 12 metre figure confirms that privacy is protected, but the question of enclosure falls to be judged on the particular relationship rather than resolved by those measurements. 16. The extension would present a flank of some 8.1 metres set 1.4 metres from the boundary with the rear gardens of Nos. 18, 20 and 22 Priory Court Road, with approximately 15 metres to the dwellings themselves. The proposal’s roof would be hipped and set down 0.6 metres from the host ridge, reducing bulk at the point closest to the boundary, and the boundary is screened by existing planting and fencing. SPD2 notes that a significant change in level between properties may increase an extension's impact on neighbours' amenity. The appeal site does sit above the Priory Court Road properties to the west, but the change in level is gradual rather than significant, and I do not consider it such as to materially increase the effect of the extension on those properties. 17. Taking these matters together, I am not persuaded that the proposal would result in an overbearing impact or an oppressive sense of enclosure such as to warrant Appeal Decision 6013359 4 refusal in this regard given the separation distances involved and presence of existing boundary screening. The proposal, therefore, accords with Policy BCS21 of the CS, Policies DM27 and DM30 of the DMP, and the guidance in SPD2 in terms of impact on neighbouring living conditions. Trees 18. The Council's tree concerns centred on a conifer which stood near to the existing garage, in the rear garden of No. 22 Priory Court Road. As I saw on my site visit it has since been removed, which accords with the appellant's photographic evidence. The proposal cannot now result in its loss, and as the tree was never within the appellant's control there is no basis for attributing its removal to the development. It follows that the Bristol Tree Replacement Standard, which is directed at replacing trees lost to development, is not engaged, and neither replacement planting nor a financial contribution is justified. 19. There is a remaining Rowan tree, also in the rear garden of No. 22, standing further from the boundary than the conifer did. The appellant has provided a BS5837:2012 calculation of its root protection area, which the drawings show the extension falling wholly outside, and that calculation is not contested. I am, therefore, satisfied that the development would not encroach upon its root protection area, generate pressure for future pruning or removal, or require tree protection measures. 20. Taking these matters together, I find no conflict with Policies BCS9, BCS11 and BCS21 of the CS or Policies DM15, DM17, DM26, DM27 and DM29 of the DMP in respect of impact on trees. Other Matters 21. I have considered the third‑party representation, which supported the proposal subject to retention of the boundary fence between the appeal site and the neighbouring property. This is a matter between the parties rather than one requiring planning control. In any event, there is no evidence before me that the proposed development would necessitate the removal of the fence. Conclusion 22. I have found no harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers or to trees. However, the harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling, the semi- detached pair, and the street scene is not outweighed by the matters weighing in the proposal's favour. 23. The proposal therefore conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole, and there are no material considerations that indicate a decision otherwise. For the reasons given, and having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is dismissed. N Perrins INSPECTOR