Appeal 3342347

The appeal is dismissed.

I consider the main issues to be: a) the effect pf the proposal on the architectural integrity of the host property and thereby the character of the area, and; b) the effect on biodiversity.

The appeal property is a two-storey detached dwelling. It is located in a predominantly residential area. [name] observed on my site visit the road is characterised by an eclectic mix of architectural styles, designs and forms.

The appellant proposes a two-storey extension along with a single storey side extension. The two-storey addition would extend the property to both the front and rear.

The proposed additions have been designed in an overtly modern contemporary style. The house as altered would be clad in a mix of vertical timber boarding, fair face brickwork and white render. It is also proposed to alter the existing fenestration to reflect the overall contemporary style of the house as extended.

I appreciate that the proposed extensions and alterations would change the character and appearance of the existing dwelling. However, in my judgement the proposed development would result in a well-mannered dwelling as extended.

Given the design of the house as extended and the rich mix of contrasting architectural styles of the houses in the street I do not consider that the house as altered would appear so incongruous as to be out of keeping with the street scene and the character of the immediate area.

Accordingly, I conclude in respect of the first main issue that the proposed development would not cause harm to architectural integrity of the host property and thereby the character of the area. To allow it would therefore accord with the objectives of Policy HE2 of the Christchurch and East Dorset Local Plan–Part 1 [name] ([name] 2014) (CS) and the National Planning Policy Framework as they relate to, amongst other things, the quality of development. Biodiversity:

The appellant submitted a [name] (PRA) Report dated 20 January 2023, prepared by ABR Ecology Ltd. I understand that this was prepared for the discharge of a condition in respect of an earlier planning permission Ref: 2/21/0356/HOU. This was for a different form of development to the appeal scheme.

Although reference is made in the appellant’s statement to a revised report undertaken after the application was determined, and presumably based on the current scheme at appeal, dated the 5 March 2024 this has not been provided. Nevertheless, even it had been it would in any case have needed to be considered by the local planning authority, along with other consultees as necessary in the first instance.

Accordingly, due to the lack of and up to date PRA for the proposal before me I can only conclude, in respect of the second main issue, that the development does not accord with the aims of CS Policy ME1 to safeguard biodiversity.

I have concluded that the proposed development would not adversely affect the street scene or the character and appearance of the wider area. However, I consider that these factors are outweighed by the unacceptable harm that would be caused to biodiversity. To my mind this is a compelling objection. For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.