Appeal 3312989

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant has submitted a revised plan Ref. PL01 [name] due to the fact that not all of the proposed windows were shown on the relevant floor plans. Having regard to the fact that all of these windows were shown on the proposed elevations I consider that no parties would be prejudiced by me accepting this drawing; I have therefore determined the appeal on this basis.

The main issues are the effect of the appeal proposal upon the character and appearance of the area, and upon the living conditions of the occupants of [address], with specific reference to privacy and outlook.

The appeal relates to a reasonably well conserved, detached chalet bungalow situated between 2no detached two storey houses within the suburban residential street of [address] where house designs, forms and external facing materials vary, albeit remaining fairly traditional in their appearance.

The proposal would comprise a complete second storey over the existing bungalow whilst utilising the existing footprint, including that of a large single storey flat roof extension to the rear of the property. The two red brick detached houses either side are largely untouched on their principal elevations bar the installation of uPVC replacement fenestration. I consider that the proposal would visually jar with these, particularly by virtue of the contemporary nature of the proposal including the proposed grey fenestration and the finishing materials to the external elevations. It would appear incongruous in between the red-brick dwellings, notwithstanding the use of white render on a number of properties within the locality.

In coming to this conclusion I do have sympathy with the appellant in that they feel that the Council did not act positively or proactively, but ultimately that does affect my assessment of the proposal on its planning merits. Further, overall I do not take issue with the bulk, scale or massing of the dwelling as proposed to be extended. However, whilst it is quite clear that the National Planning Policy Framework (the ‘Framework’) advises that planning decisions should, amongst other things, not prevent or discourage appropriate innovation or change, the proposed fenestration and finishing materials to the elevation in quite a visually exposed location would give rise to demonstrable harm to the character and appearance of the area. I therefore find the proposal contrary to Policy CS41 of the Adopted Bournemouth Local Plan: [name] (2012) which states that the Council will ensure that all development and spaces are well designed to respect the site and its surroundings, and that development which by virtue of its design would be detrimental to the built environment, amenity or character of any part of the Borough will not be permitted.

In respect to impacts upon the living conditions of the occupants of [address], all of the windows on the north east elevation are those serving the ground floor reception room no1 and the first floor bedroom no 3, together with 2no high level windows at ground floor level which would be obscurely glazed. Bearing in mind that the former two windows would be secondary to those found on the principal elevation, I consider that if I had been so minded to have allowed the appeal, the imposition of a planning condition requiring all windows on that elevation to be obscurely glazed would have been reasonable.

I note the Council’s reference to the perception of feeling overlooked by the occupants of no34, however I consider this to be tenuous, particularly bearing in mind that with the exception of a secondary side kitchen window, all other windows on the facing elevation are obscurely glazed or not serving habitable rooms. The secondary kitchen window which currently overlooks the driveway serving number 34 is clear glazed, however bearing in mind its nature, I consider that it would not give rise to an undue loss of outlook from that dwelling as a whole, with the garage of no 34 located in a position straddling the rear elevations of both its host dwelling and that on the appeal site, therefore providing a degree of screening.

I consider that the residential amenity of the occupants of [address] would not be materially harmed from any overbearing impacts or through a loss of privacy, including to their immediate rear curtilage as in reality the only true views to be afforded over their rear garden would be from the proposed Juliette balcony towards its far end.

Having regard to the above and all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal be dismissed. [planning inspector] INSPECTOR 2