Appeal 3274575

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant submitted revised plans at the appeal stage. The amendments thereon included reducing; the size of the third storey, the depth of the first floor rear balcony, the depth of the first floor front extension and the size of the rear decorative frame. The second and third storey front windows would also be changed and become opaque glazed while the soft landscaping and boundary hedging to the front and side boundaries would be increased.

[name] of the Procedural Guide: Planning appeals – England 2021, sets out that the appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme and it is important that what is considered by the Inspector is essentially what was considered by the local planning authority, and on which interested people’s views were sought. When taken together, the proposed changes would significantly alter the scheme from that which was before the Council. [name] accept them, it would prejudice other parties that may wish to comment. I have therefore not taken them into account. Consequently, the appeal has been determined on the basis of the plans referenced in the Council’s decision notice.

Since the 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 issues are: • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property and the wider area; and • the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of 3 and [address], and 1 The Capstans, with particular regard to outlook and privacy.

The appeal property is a modern twenty-first century two-storey house. Excluding the driveway, it occupies a fairly narrow plot and the building has a distinctive stepped form with flat roofs. It is understood the appeal property and its neighbour at [address] replaced a former single detached house. In the redevelopment, it is apparent the two new dwellings were sensitively designed having regard to the meandering nature of [address] at this point and the corresponding change in the building line on the western side of the street.

As such, No 2A stands further forward in the street than No 2 and it is likewise set further back from [name] at the rear. Owing to the siting and massing of the two houses within their plots, the open areas beyond the rear elevations make a positive contribution to the spaciousness of the harbour shoreline, while the areas beyond the main two storey part of the front elevations similarly make a positive contribution to the spaciousness of [address].

While the appellant emphasises that the scheme would not increase the dwelling’s footprint, the proposed first floor rear balcony would nevertheless increase the depth of the building at the rear and consequently reduce the spaciousness of the shoreline. Moreover, the substantial decorative frame would give the visual impression of the full width of the ground floor projecting even further towards the harbour, thereby exacerbating the appeal scheme’s harmful effect.

In views along [address], a large proportion of the bulk of the proposed first floor extension over the garage would visibly project above the front pitched roof profile of [address] to the north. The appeal property would therefore appear unduly prominent in the street scene and the additional bulk would impinge on the spaciousness of the street.

[address] contains a mix of predominantly two and three storey properties but it is clear the character of the area is continuing to evolve in favour of the latter, with [address] being amongst the latest to obtain permission to increase from two to three storeys, (Council Ref: APP/18/01018/F). The example of [address] which is a three-storey property located between Nos 6 and 8 which both remain two-storey also indicates such changes are not occurring sequentially. Furthermore, upon entering the street, the third storey of [address] is clearly visible above the two-storey height of the appeal property.

In this context, the principle of adding a third storey to the appeal property would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the area, notwithstanding Nos 2 and 3 on either side being two storey, or No 2 previously being refused permission for a third storey over a decade ago in 2008 and 2009. Likewise, there is sufficient variation between the siting and design of Nos 2 and 2A that such a difference in height could be accommodated without harming their appearance as a pair of properties.

Nevertheless, due to a combination of the width and depth of the proposed third storey, the scale of the additional high level bulk would result in the building appearing disproportionate relative to its modest plot, whilst it would also fail to suitably respect the distinctive stepped character of the existing building, particularly on the northern elevation.

In light of the above, the proposed development would have an unacceptably harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host property and the wider area. As such, it would conflict with Policies PP27 and PP31 of the Poole Local Plan 2018 (LP). Amongst other things, these policies seek to ensure extensions respect the existing building and that development generally respects local patterns of development in terms of the building line, built site coverage and scale, bulk and massing. The policies also seek to ensure development respects the built shoreline character of Poole.

In the redevelopment of the former single detached house, it is apparent the two new dwellings were also sensitively designed having regard to the siting of No 3. The north elevation of No 2A progressively steps back from the boundary with No 3 as it advances towards the harbour, thereby ensuring No 3 is not unduly enclosed.

Given a large section of the proposed rear decorative frame would run close to the northern boundary, it would eliminate the sense of the appeal building stepping back and the occupiers of No 3 would experience a harmful sense of enclosure at this point. Moreover, the additional high level bulk of the proposed third storey would be oppressive and overbearing to the occupiers of No 3, with regard to the sections over the end of the existing second storey and above the existing rear balcony. As the two new rear balconies would each have 1.8m high screens at the northern end however, the privacy of the occupiers of No 3 would be adequately maintained.

[address] and 1 The Capstans are both located a sufficient distance away that the proposed first floor front extension and third storey would not be overbearing. Furthermore, the occupiers of No 24 would not experience any harmful loss of privacy because its front garden area and front balconies are publicly visible from the road.

The front garden area of No 1, which is that property’s only private outdoor amenity space, is largely hidden behind a perimeter wall in the existing view from the first floor juliette balcony at the front of the appeal property. The closer view that would be obtained through the proposed first floor front extension, as well as the higher view from the proposed third storey, would both be more intrusive and have an adverse impact on the privacy of the garden area at No 1, which would be unacceptable for users of that space.

Accordingly, the proposed development would have an unacceptably harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] with regard to outlook, and 1 The Capstans with regard to privacy. As such, it would conflict with Policy PP27 of the LP which seeks to ensure proposals would not result in a harmful impact on amenity for local residents in respect of privacy and through development being overbearing or oppressive.

The appeal site is not within but borders the protected habitats of [name], (Site of Special Scientific Interest, Special Protection Area and Ramsar site). The nature, scale and location of the proposed development would unlikely create unacceptable additional pressure and therefore damage to the habitats.

There would be no tangible benefits derived from the proposed wider palette of materials as the building’s existing materials comfortably integrate with the street scene. There would be a public benefit in respect of the contribution to the local economy and economic growth at the construction stage. There would also be a private benefit in respect of the additional living accommodation for the appellant’s family. However, the cumulative benefits would not outweigh the identified harms and the subsequent conflict with the development plan which is ascribed substantial weight.

Given the above, the presumption in favour of sustainable development expressed in Policy PP1 of the LP would not apply. The proposed development would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no material considerations, including relevant advice within the Framework, which would indicate that the decision should be made otherwise than in accordance with the development plan. The appeal is therefore dismissed.