Appeal 3356424

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue in the appeal is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and on the Branksome Park and [address] Conservation Area ‘CA’ in which the appeal site is situated.

The appeal dwelling is a two storey detached house located on the eastern side of [address]. The area is residential and sylvan in character. There is a detached outbuilding set back to the rear consisting of a garage and an annexe. The dwelling is in need of some repair but is a handsome addition to the CA.

The proposed development is set out in the box heading above but the focus of attention is on the single storey full width wrap around extension proposed on the southern and eastern elevations.

The proposed full width wrap around extension when viewed from the south would appear disproportionately long with an unsympathetic massing. It would remove some of the articulated and distinctive elements of the dwelling which strongly contribute to its character. Obscuring the lower half of the double bay gable element on the southern elevation would be particularly detrimental. It contributes to the originality of the dwelling. The ground floor massing, whilst alleviated with fenestration, would result in an unbalancing and unremitting façade, not in tune with the handsome more light touch arts and crafts detailing.

Turning to the CA, I have a statutory duty to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the Branksome Park and [address] Conservation Area. Its significance is found in the large, wooded plots, with predominantly high-quality period detached dwellings nestling amongst the trees. The appeal site is one of a line of large dwellings in generous plots on the eastern side of [address]. The Character Appraisal and Management Plan for the CA (dated 2006) identifies the appeal dwelling as a key building (mainly for its group value). Its description and contribution to character is set out as inter-war arts and crafts, painted render, brown clay tile hipped roof, catslide with flat topped dormer, gable, hipped tile roof with triangular brackets over ground floor canted bays, tall rendered external chimney stack with tile capping, side on to road with well landscaped garden and original metal windows leaded lights. I consider that the dwelling’s contribution to the significance of the CA would be reduced if the proposed development took place. Whilst the main development would be well screened from the public realm, private views within a conservation area are also a consideration and they would be adversely affected.

The heritage harm would be less than substantial in terms of NPPF (Dec 2024) paragraph 215, nevertheless there would be insufficient public benefits flowing from the proposal to outweigh that harm.

In coming to this decision, I have borne in mind that there is an extant planning permission for a scheme which has similarities to the appeal scheme before me but does not include a full width wrap around extension on the southern and eastern elevations of the dwelling. The application reference is APP/24/00416/[name] consider that the appeal scheme would result in materially worse harm and be less sympathetic in design to the host dwelling and CA than the scheme with extant planning permission.

I therefore conclude that the proposal would unduly harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the CA and would be contrary to policies PP27 and PP30 of the Poole Local Plan (November 2018) and the Branksome Park and [address] Conservation Area Character Appraisal and Management Plan SPG (2006).

Having considered all representations made, for the reasons given above, I dismiss the appeal. [name].C.