Appeal 3317300

The appeal is dismissed.

As set out above, planning permission 7-2018-11748-C was granted in 2018 for the erection of a two storey rear extension off an earlier extension at [address]. Before going further, I note that the planning application form submitted for the proposal, the subject of this current appeal, identified the appeal site as [site address] , however that it is quite clearly an error with the appeal site relating to [address], as confirmed by the site location plan and the Council’s decision notice.

In addition, the planning application form stipulated that condition No 1 of the parent planning permission be varied such that [name]. 6042/2 [name] be approved, in lieu of [name] of the same drawing number; essentially omitting the pitched roof element from the proposal. However, it appears that [name]. 6042/2 [name] was not submitted with the Section 73A planning application. Instead two plans were submitted with [name] 6358-1 and 6358-2 with the former showing a flat roof construction projecting significantly above the eaves of the host dwelling. Notwithstanding that the former drawing is entitled ‘Elevations as existing’ this is clearly not the case from my site visit with it appearing that the extension has been constructed in accordance with [name]. 6042/2 [name] which I understand was originally registered as a proposed drawing with planning application Ref. 7-2018-11748- C.

I therefore consider that the drawings marked as ‘existing’ are incorrect and I have determined the appeal on the basis that the appellant seeks to vary the extant planning permission in accordance with [name]. 6042/2 [name] which was superseded prior to the determination of 7-2018-11748-C.

The main issue is the effect that the appeal proposal has on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site is located within a quite highly prominent location with the rear elevation of the two storey flat roof extension clearly visible from the public [address] Main car park. On inspecting the site and its surroundings I note that both nos 6 and [address] have two storey flat roof projections to their rear elevations; albeit they appear to be of a lesser scale; and whilst it is not for me to comment on the appropriateness of these or otherwise, ultimately each case must be assessed on its own merits.

I consider that the omission of the approved pitched roof is a retrograde step from the permitted design, particularly bearing in mind the already significant projection from the original rear elevation of the host dwelling. Combined with its overall width and flat roof renders it very ‘boxy’ in appearance, and the proposal lacks a suitable aesthetic solution with it appearing incongruous within the locality and failing to amount to good design. I find this contrary to the Council’s Residential Extensions – A Design Guide for Householders (2008) which requires proposals to maintain or enhance the character of the existing house and its setting, whilst ensuring subservience. The scheme is also contrary to Policy CS41 of the Bournemouth Local Plan Core Strategy (2012) and Policy BAP2 of the Boscombe and Pokesdown Neighbourhood Plan (2009) which both seek high standards of urban design requiring development to respect its site and surroundings through, amongst other things, scale, siting, character and appearance.

Having regard to the above and all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal be dismissed.