Appeal 6000725

The appeal is dismissed.

The proposal is for a loft conversion including a side and rear dormer. The site already has extant permission for a rear dormer and front rooflights (reference APP/24/01216/F). The only element of the appeal proposal in dispute is the proposed side dormer. As did the Council, I find no harm arising from the other proposed works.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, with particular regard to the preservation or enhancement of the Ashley Cross Conservation Area (CA).

The appeal site is located within [name], and fronts [address], which is predominantly residential. I therefore have a statutory duty under section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing its character or appearance. The Framework Section 16 also requires that great weight should be given to the conservation of designated heritage assets.

The Ashley Cross Conservation Area [name] and Management Plan (2012) (CACAMP) characterises the buildings south of the railway embankment as dating from the Victorian era comprising short terraces, detached or semi-detached dwellings. The CACAMP identifies that the area has cohesive qualities, from which it derives its significance. The appeal site is the [site address] of No. [site address] , a red brick semi-detached building with a hipped roof and a gable above the bay window. Its largely unaltered appearance contributes positively to the significance of the area.

The proposal would alter the existing roof through the addition of a side and rear dormer. The side dormer would be particularly visible from within the street scene and would give the appearance of a top-heavy building, eroding its existing balanced appearance. As such, the proposal would result in the introduction of a prominent and discordant feature onto the roof which would be at odds with the otherwise cohesive street scene.

Given that the proposed development would introduce a bulky feature, and that the significance of the CA is derived from its cohesive qualities, the proposal would not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA. The proposal would thus cause less than substantial harm to the significance of the CA as a designated heritage asset, within the upper range of that spectrum of harm to which the Framework paragraph 212 requires that I give great weight.

The Framework paragraph 215 requires less than substantial harm to the significance of the CA to be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. No public benefits have been put before me. Accordingly, there are no public benefits which would outweigh the great weight to which I give the less than substantial harm to the CA when applying the Framework paragraph 215. The proposal would therefore fail to preserve or enhance the [name]. In this regard it would conflict with Policies PP27 and PP30 of the Poole Local Plan (2018), which seek to ensure that development preserves or enhances Poole’s heritage assets, and respects the surrounding area and adjoining buildings.

The proposed development would therefore conflict with the development plan as a whole. With no other material considerations outweighing this conflict, for the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal is dismissed.