Appeal 3343982

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the effects of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the area, and upon protected species.

The appeal property is a detached bungalow with accommodation within the roof space incorporating dormers to the front and rear. It sits tucked into a corner at the terminal end of a short residential cul-de-sac comprising five properties arranged in a fan shape around a vehicle turning head.

[address] runs as a sole projection along the length of [address], a residential street. The Council’s Lymington Local Distinctiveness Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) was adopted in February [address] and [address] as a single entity, describing it as a planned connected street layout. The SPD describes [address] specifically as a varied, low-rise street dominated by gardens and occasional trees with dwellings comprising hipped bungalows, converted or purpose built with chalet second floors. I saw during my visit an eclectic mix of house styles along [address]. [address] is similar, with Nos 1 and 2 modified beyond their original forms. The proposal would significantly modify the appearance of No 5, including extending its footprint to the rear and side, and introducing twin gable features to the front and rear elevations.

The Council asserts that the properties within [address] are distinctive as a result of their low eaves and hipped roof designs. However, I was unable to detect any particular rhythm or uniformity to the pattern of development surrounding the appeal property that was significant. There is no regimented building line within [address] and due to past alterations, different house styles co-exist. Given how the wider area has evolved, with notable variations in design and appearance between many neighbouring properties locally, I do not consider No 5 to be sensitive to change.

The building’s eaves would be undeniably higher and the property would lose its hipped roof profile. But this would merely reflect some of the house styles within the area and which, to my mind, contribute positively to its varied appearance. Prominent forward-facing gables are an established feature, including within [address]. Given this, and the recessed position of No 5, these features would not appear conspicuous. There would be a marginal increase to the building’s overall height, and a reorientation of ridge lines, but the eaves would drop below the height of those on a typical two-storey property, maintaining a squat profile for the building that would be in-keeping.

Although the proposal would extend the building to one side, this would be single-storey. There would be no obvious impact from this element upon the street scene, as is accepted by the Council.

The changes to No 5 would be stark in contrast to its current modest form. I also accept that there would be a significant increase in floorspace at both ground and first-floor levels. However, I do not agree that the overall envelope of the building would be excessive in size or bulk. Neither do I agree that it would be overly dominant. Instead, I find the remodelled form of the appeal property would introduce a contemporary looking building, consistent in scale, height, and bulk with many locally, and which would sit comfortable within its reasonably secluded setting. As such, I find no conflict with Policy ENV3 of the New Forest District Council Local Plan 2016-2036 [name]: Planning Strategy (the LP) as far as it requires new development to be sympathetic to its context.

The planning application was accompanied by a [name] for [name]. Section 2 of the checklist deals with legally protected and other notable species. In response to the checklist’s question asking if the proposal would affect buildings or structures exhibiting features likely to offer bat roosting potential e.g. gaps/crevices/cracks within building materials; hanging tiles, timber weatherboarding/cladding; roof voids; etc, the applicant answered ‘no’. However, when prompted to indicate if the checklist was completed or checked by a qualified ecologist, no indication that it was done so is given. On the other hand, the Council’s ecologist has noted the extensive alterations including a new first-floor and corresponding roof changes that are proposed and has raised the prospect of the existing building having the potential to support roosting bats.

The appellant has not disputed the Council’s assertions and has indicated that a preliminary roost appraisal (PRA) would be undertaken. Such an appraisal would inform the possible need for any additional survey effort or mitigation, if required. No such PRA is before me.

During my visit, I observed some very mature trees adjacent to the rear garden boundary of No [address] to the existing dwelling. These are covered by Tree Preservation Order No 48/92 dated January 1993 and are identified within the TPO as tree Nos 8, 9 and 10. The age, extent of canopy cover, and proximity of the trees to the appeal property give me reason not to deviate from the views of the Council’s ecologist.

The absence of a PRA means that I cannot be certain that a protected species would not be adversely affected as a result of the development. In these circumstances there would be conflict with Policy DM2 of the [name] 2: Sites and Development Management, adopted in 2014.

The appellant has argued that the PRA could be secured by condition. I disagree. The presence or absence of any protected species is a material consideration in the determination of this appeal. The extent to which they could be affected by the proposed development needs to be established in the first instance.

Notwithstanding my findings on the first main issue, in the absence of any clear indication that a protected species would not be affected by the proposal the appeal fails.