Appeal 3310235

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the local area.

The appeal property is a residential dwelling which fronts [address] with rear access via [address] to an existing irregular shaped garage, reflecting the irregular shape of the plot at this northern end. It is set within a predominantly residential area with a wide variety of building forms and styles in the local area, including along [address]. [address], views can be obtained of part of the rear of the properties in [address] with a range of ancillary garages and outbuildings at the end of [address] and extending into [address]. There is, in my view, a clear visual divide between the residential properties in [address] and the generally smaller and more modest ancillary outbuildings and garages, serving and relating to the properties in [address].

The proposal would seek to build a first floor under a pitched roof over the existing garage. This would involve increasing the ridge of the garage by approximately 2 m. Because of the change in levels it would appear as two storeys at the front facing onto [address] and an elevated single storey at the rear.

I have taken into account the information provided relating to the height of the proposal in the context of the two bungalows closest to it in [address]. The attached sections demonstrate that the proposal would be lower than these bungalows. Nonetheless the additional bulk and massing with the first floor addition would result in the proposed building becoming more visually prominent in the street scene.

I agree that the proposal would remain ancillary to the main dwelling fronting [address]. However, the proposed additional height and massing would be very apparent in views along [address], and from [address]. In these views, and particularly along [address], the proposal would not relate in scale or form with the other ancillary garages and outbuildings serving the properties in [address]. It would be visually over-dominant and would appear visually incongruous in relation to the properties in [address]. I therefore consider that the proposal would materially harm the character and appearance of the local area.

The front elevation would include a glazed double door with a juliette balcony under a glazed gable above. These design features would further emphasise its over dominating presence in the street scene. In his appeal submission, the Appellant has offered to revise the windows to velux windows, but no detailed proposals are before me. Furthermore, any proposed changes would need to be the subject of further consultation and consideration and I am therefore unable to take this proposal into account in my decision.

I therefore conclude that the proposed development would materially harm the character and appearance of the local area. This would conflict with Policy CS41 of the Bournemouth Local Plan: [name], the Council's Residential Development Design Guide for Householders, and the National Planning Policy Framework and in particular Section 12, all of which amongst other matters seek a high quality of design that respects the local context.

Both the Council and the Appellant have referred to a 2017 appeal decision which refused permission for a garage with room in the roof under Ref: APP/G1250/D/17/3181350. That decision has not been provided to me nor the details of that scheme but from the limited information provided, including quotes from that appeal decision, the principal issue related to the impact of the scheme on the character and appearance of the local area. My decision is based solely on the planning merits of the scheme before me, but I have also concluded that the proposed scheme would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the local area. Furthermore, the Council has indicated, and the Appellant has not disputed, that the earlier proposal would have resulted in a smaller increase in the overall height of 0.7m, compared with the proposal before me.

A number of concerns have been raised about the relationship with neighbouring properties and the impact on the living conditions of neighbours. However, given the siting and distance to surrounding properties I do not consider that there would be a material concern in this regard. The Council also raised no objections in this regard.

The Appellant has referred to the Council’s SPD – [name]. A guide for householders 2008 and the need for outdoor private space. However, the proposal before me relates to additional indoor private space and would not affect the outdoor private space at the property.

For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, including in representations, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.