Appeal 3316782

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a first floor rear extension at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 7-2022-28722, dated 6 October 2022, subject to the conditions set out in the attached Schedule.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the host property.

The host property is a semi-detached dwelling. Whilst originally built in a unified design and materials the two elements comprised in the pair now look considerably different when viewed from the street given the changes and modifications that have taken place to the front elevations over the years.

The addition proposed now affects only the rear of the house, and would barely be discernible from the public realm, and only then through the narrow gap separating Nos 116 & 118. The hedge in No 118’s front garden would also act as an effective screen. To the rear of the house is a railway in a shallow cutting, and a high fence on the rear garden boundary would largely mask passing passengers’ fleeting view of the proposed development. Beyond the railway are the rears of commercial buildings comprised within an industrial estate.

I have noted the Council’s criticism of the proposed design of the extension. Even if the criticism was merited, the proposal, if built, would have little or no effect on the surrounding environment since the works would be set in such a secluded location. Moreover, as already explained, the dwelling’s original appearance has been considerably modified and further modest changes, as proposed, would largely prove visually inconsequential.

Notwithstanding this, however, I believe that the architect’s design represents a skilful and attractive solution in a confined area, in particular, in producing roof forms which marry well with that of the original dwelling. I see nothing untoward in the design which warrants preventing the proposed development from proceeding.

I conclude that the proposed development would not harm the character and appearance of the host property. Accordingly, I find no conflict with those provisions of Policy CS41 of the Bournemouth Local Plan: [name] or Policy BAP2 of the Boscombe and Pokesdown Neighbourhood Plan requiring new development to incorporate high standards of sustainable and inclusive urban design and to be well designed respecting the site and its surroundings.

It is necessary in the interests of certainty that the development should be carried out in accordance with the approved plans.

The standard condition suggested by the Council in respect of materials is also imposed in the interests of local visual amenity.

All other matters referred to in the representations have been considered, and I share the Council’s view, for the same reasons, that the proposal would not harm neighbouring amenities.

I have also taken account of the Council’s references to national policy and its ‘[name] – a [name] for Householders’. Nothing therein suggests to me that my conclusions on the main issue should be modified.

No other matter is of such strength or significance as to outweigh the considerations that led me to my conclusions.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: The location plan and plans Ref S04; S05; P02 & P03.

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those of the existing dwelling. 2 3