Appeal 3297394

The appeal is dismissed.

I consider the main issues to be: a) The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the street scene; and, b) whether the proposed development would result in such an overshadowing, overbearing or oppressive form of development as to cause harm to the living conditions of neighbouring residential occupiers of number 49.

The appeal property, [site address] , is a detached hipped roof bungalow, with roof space accommodation. It is located within a row of similar detached bungalows. A number of which have been altered to be chalet bungalows, but nevertheless generally all retain the scale, form and character of the original properties.

The neighbouring property, number [address] to the east is set well back behind number 47 and the other properties that front on to [address].

The wider area is characterised by an eclectic mix of dwelling types, including three storey buildings with mansard roofs and flat roof two-storey properties.

The appellant proposes, following the removal of the existing pitched roof, the extension and alteration of the bungalow to create a three-storey dwelling. The development includes the construction of a three-storey 3.0 metre deep extension to the rear. The bungalow as extended and altered would then have the appearance and form of a detached three-storey contemporary styled house.

In addition, it is also proposed to demolish the existing flat roof garage to the rear of the property and to replace it with pitched roof garage with an office in the roof space.

Policy PP27 of the Borough of Poole-Poole Local Plan (Adopted 13 November

(LP) sets out the Council’s policy in respect of extensions and alterations to residential properties. It requires extensions and or alterations to buildings to be designed to respect and relate to the existing building and maintain or enhance any details that contribute positively to the local character. Further, along with other things, development is required to reflect or enhance local patterns of development and neighbouring buildings in terms of, amongst other things, height and scale, bulk and massing, materials and detailing.

The form and appearance of the bungalow as extended would, by reason of its height, three-dimensional form, fenestration pattern and materials appear in direct contrast to the vernacular from and character of the existing modest single storey host property. Accordingly, I do not consider that the proposed extensions would relate to or respect the existing building. Further, the extensions would not serve to maintain or enhance any of the buildings design details that currently contribute positively to the local character.

Furthermore, due to its proposed height, form, massing, materials and detailing it would, being located within a row of vernacular bungalows, dominate the street scene at this point. It would therefore fail reflect or enhance local patterns of development and neighbouring buildings.

The existing garage, due to its flat roof, is a relatively modest structure. As with the other garages fronting cobbs Lane it is clearly an ancillary building to the residential dwellings, thereby reflecting the nature of its function. However, the new garage given the steep pitch of its roof in contrast would make it a dominant and unduly prominent building. It would thereby compete visually with the neighbouring dwelling at no [address].

For the reasons set out I conclude in respect of the first main issue that the proposed development would cause harm to the architectural integrity of the host buildings and the street scene of both [address] and [address].

In reaching my conclusion on the first main issue I am aware of the support for a contemporary dwelling here. However, notwithstanding the merits of the architectural composition, I have found that it is not appropriate in this location.

The Council contend that the due to the orientation of the site and the increase in height of the dwelling as extended it would result in increased shading of the neighbouring properties, both in the morning and after midday. Further the three-storey rear addition would appear overbearing, oppressive, and harmful to the amenity of the occupiers of number 49.

Based on the scheme designs before me, the relationship of number 47 to number 49, and as number 49 faces south west and is located to the south east of the appeal property I do not consider that number 47 as extended would overshadow or shade number 47 to such an extent as to cause a significant loss of sunlight or daylight.

Further, given the relationship of number 47 as extended to number 49 and the flat roof form of the proposed extension, I am not persuaded that the dwelling as extended would appear so overbearing as to result in an oppressive form of development.

I therefore conclude in respect of the second main issue that the proposal would not cause harm to residential living conditions as suggested by the Council. It would therefore accord with the aims of LP Policy 27 as it seeks to protect residential amenity.

I have concluded that the proposal would not cause harm to the living conditions of the neighbouring residential occupiers. However, I consider that the bungalow as extended, and the replacement garage would each be so dominant and unduly prominent features as to cause harm to the character and appearance of the street scenes of [address] and [address]. To my mind, this is a compelling objection. I have considered all the other matters raised, but none change my overall conclusion, reached on the planning merits of the proposal, that the appeal should not succeed.