Appeal 3371387

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: (i) the living conditions of the occupiers of No. 33, with particular regard to outlook and privacy; and (ii) the character and appearance of the area.

Neither the decision notice, nor the minutes of the relevant committee meeting, identify which neighbours the Council had in mind when refusing the planning application. However, during my site visit I had the opportunity to visit No. 33 which neighbours the appeal site. From this vantage point, it was abundantly clear just how close No. 31 and 33 are to each other, either side of the shared boundary.

As a result of the proposed development, the overall mass of the existing home would be significantly increased. Indeed, the south west elevation, which directly faces No. 33, would be much taller and more imposing than at present. When viewed from the rooflights within the first floor of No. 33, which serve a bedroom, bathroom and hallway, the increased size of the appeal dwelling would be readily apparent. As such, due to the close proximity of the two dwellings, the proposal would inevitably make the occupiers of the neighbouring property feel much more enclosed and cramped, thereby resulting in clear and obvious harm.

[name] acknowledge that these rooms are not primary living spaces, and that there are other windows which provide an outlook, I do not consider that these factors mitigate the harm to any significant degree. Moreover, I find that the identified harm would also be apparent when the occupiers of No 33 enter and exit their front door, and also to a slightly lesser extent, when utilising their rear garden space.

In relation to privacy, the proposed development would involve the provision of one first floor window within the part of the south west elevation that is closest to No.

However, this is shown as being obscured on the plans and I am satisfied that this could be secured via condition. A further window would also be situated at first floor level which would serve the master bedroom. While there might be some intervisibility between this window and the rooflights at No. 33, such views already exist due to the presence of an existing dormer window within the roof space of No. 31. As such, I do not find that the proposal would worsen the existing situation to any notable extent.

Nevertheless, irrespective of the effect of the proposal upon other neighbours, I have found harm to the occupiers of No. 33 in relation to outlook. As such, the scheme would conflict with Policy PP27 of the Poole Local Plan, 2018 (the LP). The relevant aspects of this policy seek to preserve the living conditions of existing residents.

When one walks along [address], it is apparent that many properties have been significantly modified or extended. As a result, there is a wide variety of differing styles and sizes within the immediate area. The proposed development would enlarge No. 31 to a significant extent. However, while its overall mass would be much greater than at present, its size would not appear incongruous or out of place when considered within the context of other dwellings in the vicinity, including No. 27. Furthermore, given the range of styles that exist within the street, the proposed design and materials would not be at odds with local character.

As such, when perceived from either [address] or [address], I am satisfied that the proposed development would not result in harm to the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore conform with the relevant aspects of LP Policy PP27 which seek to ensure that development is well designed.

I have found that the appeal proposal would cause harm in relation to living conditions. Consequently, it would conflict with the development plan taken as a whole, notwithstanding that I have not found harm with regards to character and appearance. Whilst the scheme would provide the occupiers of No. 31 with more space, this is a private benefit which attracts very little weight.

Moreover, while there is potential to ensure that the enlarged home would be more energy efficient, and to enhance biodiversity, the small-scale nature of the scheme means that any such benefits are likely to be very limited. Accordingly, there are no material considerations, either individually or in combination, that outweigh the identified harm and associated development plan conflict. The appeal is therefore dismissed.