Appeal 3273236

The appeal is dismissed.

Since the planning application was determined, the 2021 version of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) has been published. The newly published Framework has been taken into account in the decision.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of 34 and [address] with particular regard to outlook.

The appeal property is a bungalow which has gable ends of a half-hipped form. The western gable is sited a short distance away from the end of the rear gardens to 34 and [address], which are also of a bungalow form. The rear gardens of the two neighbouring properties are of a modest depth and the houses sit at a lower level relative to the appeal site. As a consequence, they are sensitive to any changes in the scale and bulk of the appeal property, particularly above its ground floor level. The fact the flank straddles either side of the boundary between Nos 34 and 36 does not make a substantive difference in this regard.

The proposed remodelling would change the appeal property to a three storey building with a flat roof form. To accommodate the second storey, the existing pitched sides to the western gable and its half-hipped feature would effectively be squared off to a height consistent with that of the existing ridge. While the third storey above would be set back on all sides, the increased height of the building would be perceptible to the neighbouring occupiers on [address].

Given the identified sensitivity in this case, the increased height and the considerable additional bulk above the ground floor level would have a significant overbearing and oppressive impact upon the outlook experienced from the rear habitable accommodation and garden areas of Nos 34 and 36.

The appellant asserts that similar relationships between properties have been accepted by the Council nearby, notably at [address] which is positioned above the level of 1A and [address]. However, No 1 only has two storeys and there is an intervening first floor level garage at No 1A which is more prominent in the outlook from the rear of Nos 1A and 3. Those two properties also have accommodation over two floors and it appears the main living accommodation is at the first floor level.

The appellant has also drawn attention to development at 2, 3 and [address]. The development at Nos 2 and 3 was under construction at the time of the site visit and the replacement buildings have a two storey form in the [address] street scene, the permitted third storey seemingly being a lower ground floor. While the two replacement dwellings at No 8 are clearly three storey and the Council considered the space around the houses would ensure they would not be overbearing to the neighbouring properties, this appears to be in the context that the main living accommodation of the nearest properties on [address] broadly aligned with the first floor level of the proposed houses. As such, the developments referred to are not directly comparable and the proposed scheme has been considered on its own merits and with regard to its particular location and circumstances.

In light of the above, the proposed development would have an unacceptably harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of 34 and [address] with particular regard to outlook. As such, it would conflict with Policy PP27 of the Poole Local Plan 2018. Amongst other things, this policy seeks to ensure development would not result in a harmful impact upon the amenity of local residents, taking into consideration whether the development would be overbearing or oppressive.

While the proposed scheme would provide additional living accommodation for the appellant within a more energy efficient building, these considerations do not outweigh the identified harm.

The proposed development would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no material considerations, including relevant advice within the newly published Framework, which would indicate that the decision should be made otherwise than in accordance with the development plan. The appeal is therefore dismissed.