Appeal 6000735

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal scheme relates to an outline proposal, with access, appearance, layout, and scale to be considered at this stage, and with landscaping reserved for future consideration. I have considered the appeal accordingly.

A signed [name] (UU) under Section 106 dated 19 November 2025 was provided by the appellant and copied to the Council. The UU is for financial obligations in relation to [name] Management and Monitoring and [name] and Monitoring contributions. The UU covers the mitigation contributions and the Council confirm its suitability in their statement. As a result, it considers that reasons for refusal 3 and 4 have been addressed and are no longer pursued.

Since the appeal was submitted, a dwelling has been approved1 in a similar location to that proposed as part of this appeal. I have taken this approval into account in my assessment.

Given that the Council no longer seek to pursue refusal reasons 3 and 4, the main issues are: • the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area; and • whether the development would provide acceptable living conditions for future occupants, with particular regard to outlook, floor space, and external amenity space. 1 P/25/02444/FUL

The site is located near the entrance to [address], an area characterised by mature trees, with the appeal site itself benefiting from a notably verdant frontage. The appeal property is a bungalow, and the surrounding development comprises a mix of bungalows, some incorporating dormer windows, as well as two-storey houses. Although architectural styles and materials vary, most properties follow traditional forms with pitched roofs, and contemporary features such as extensive glazing or balconies are not typical within [address].

By contrast, at the opposite end of [address] there are blocks of flats of three and four storeys, all with flat roofs. These larger buildings occupy more generous plots and sit within mature landscaping, creating a distinctly different context and character from the more domestic scale and form present at the entrance to the road.

At the entrance to [address], the generous set-backs and the low profile of the first few properties contribute to a notably open and attractive street scene. The appeal site, partly screened by trees and hedging along its frontage, is not prominently visible from the public realm. It sits comfortably alongside No. 2, another bungalow, and the larger dwellings at Nos. 6 and 8, both of which are also set well back from the road.

The house proposed to the rear of the site would not be prominently visible from the street due to its set-back position and the presence of a building to the front. Although there are some differences in its design, the principle of a dwelling in this location has already been established by the recent planning approval. Consequently, I have no significant concerns regarding this element of the proposal.

Policy PP28 of the Poole Local Plan (PLP) sets out several requirements for flatted development, including that the scale and massing of new buildings should be in keeping with neighbouring development, and that plot coverage should respect the prevailing pattern along the street. The building proposed at the front of the site would represent a substantial increase in built form, both in terms of site coverage and overall scale. Although a contemporary design approach may be acceptable in principle, the particular design proposed, despite incorporating some local features such as a front gable, would further emphasise its scale and massing. As a result, it would appear overly prominent and unsympathetic within the street scene.

Although the upper floor would be largely contained within the roof, the building would nevertheless appear significantly larger than comparable two-storey properties on [address]. Its depth would also be substantially greater than that of nearby two-storey buildings, and this considerable bulk would be particularly noticeable given its siting forward of Nos. 6 and 8. Furthermore, while the plans indicate a building line running parallel to [address], the proposed building would sit closer to the street than No. 2, the nearest neighbour. Combined with the smaller scale of No. 2, this would result in the proposal being highly prominent when viewed from both directions along the street. In addition, the side elevations, despite some detailing, would present relatively stark and imposing façades, further accentuating its visual impact. The existing trees would provide some screening, however, the scale and massing of the building would still be highly visible.

The recent development on [address] has been cited as a comparison; however, its context is materially different. It occupies a position on a main road close to a shopping area, where taller buildings already form part of the established character. In addition, that development is set back in accordance with the existing building line and adopts a more traditional appearance. Similarly, the scheme on [address] sits on a much wider plot, with the building respecting the established building line of neighbouring housing and being limited to two storeys in height.

Paragraph 135(c) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) requires development to be sympathetic to local character, including the surrounding built environment. For the reasons set out above, the proposal fails to demonstrate this. While paragraph 135(c) also makes clear that this requirement should not prevent or unduly discourage innovation or change, including higher densities, the scheme before me does not exhibit any particular innovation. Although an increase in density on the site is acceptable in principle, it must be achieved in a way that does not harm the character and appearance of the area. This does not necessitate replicating the surrounding development in every respect, but it does require new development to respond appropriately to its context, which is not the case here.

Overall, the proposed building would result in significant visual harm to the character and appearance of the area as a result of its siting, height, scale, massing and design. Consequently, it would conflict with Policies PP27 and PP28 of the PLP, which require developments to be in keeping with their surroundings in respect of these matters.

The reason for refusal highlights several concerns regarding the living conditions of future occupiers of the proposed flats. These include issues relating to the size, layout, outlook and provision of external space, as well as a reliance on artificial light and ventilation.

Policy PP27 of the PLP requires development to provide satisfactory internal and external amenity space for future occupiers. The supporting text encourages compliance with the national space standards, noting that where proposals fall more than 20% below these standards, clear justification is required.

Apartment 1 is proposed as a 1-bedroom, 1-person dwelling with a Gross Internal Area (GIA) of 46.8m2. Apartment 2 is proposed as a 2-bedroom, 3-person dwelling with a GIA of 64.9m2. Both apartments therefore comply with the [name] - nationally described space standards for their respective proposed occupancy levels.

Each bedroom is shown on the plans as having a double bed, although in two instances the rooms may technically fall below the minimum size required for a double (double-occupancy) bedroom. Consequently, while the units meet the standards for the intended occupancy, they could theoretically be occupied by more people, in which case the GIAs would fall below the minimum standards applicable to those higher occupancy levels.

While the apartments would not meet the relevant space standards if occupied by a higher number of residents, their current sizes fall within the accepted 20% tolerance. It is also relevant that each of these apartments benefits from a reasonable level of outlook, good access to natural light, and usable external space.

The proposed penthouse apartments meet the required minimum space standards; however, usable floor area is reduced in places due to the sloping roof. Some rooms are also served solely by rooflights, which limits outlook, although these openings would still provide good levels of natural daylight and ventilation. Importantly, the principal living spaces retain an adequate outlook overall. On balance, despite the constraints created by the roof form, the penthouse units would offer acceptable living conditions.

Apartment 3 contains two bedrooms, both of which benefit from a good level of outlook to the front of the building. The main living space is relatively deep, and although it is served by a large window, daylight penetration would be reduced by the inset balcony. As a result, the rear portion of the room would experience limited natural light and restricted outlook, being served only by a single high-level window.

Similar concerns arise for Apartment 4, which faces the rear of the property. In particular, the kitchen area would rely on a single high-level window, offering very limited outlook and resulting in a greater dependence on artificial lighting. These constraints would collectively lead to poor living conditions for future occupiers.

It is acknowledged that the inset balconies have contributed to the light levels in these flats and it is recognised that there are benefits in terms of heating and cooling associated with the arrangement.

Each unit benefits from either a terrace or a balcony. While some of these spaces are relatively modest in size, they still provide sufficient room for occupants to sit outside and offer an acceptable level of external amenity. Additionally, there are no significant concerns regarding ventilation, as all habitable rooms are equipped with openable windows.

In reviewing the layout of the flats at [address], the living areas all benefit from a good level of outlook and natural light, and there are no directly comparable internal arrangements to those found within the appeal scheme.

To conclude, the overall scale and intensity of the proposed development has resulted in certain compromises to the internal space and living conditions for future occupiers. While the scheme provides acceptable levels of general living space and external amenity space, the limited window provision and reduced access to natural light within Apartments 3 and 4 mean that these units would not provide satisfactory internal environments and would result in a greater reliance on artificial lighting. Although this harm is modest, it nonetheless leads to a conflict with the relevant parts of Policy PP27 of the PLP and Policy BP4 of the Broadstone Neighbourhood Plan, both of which seek to secure good internal amenity for new residents. The proposal would also fail to comply with Policy PP37 of the PLP, which, among other aims, seeks to minimise dependence on artificial lighting.

The site is located between 400m and 5km of the Heathland Special Protection Area as well as being in an area where an additional dwelling would have an impact on the [name] and Ramsar site. The need for mitigation is not disputed by the appellant and a UU was submitted which the Council considers provides for the appropriate level of mitigation. On the evidence before me, I have no reason to disagree with this assessment. If the circumstances leading to a grant of permission had been present, I would have given further consideration to this in accordance with the Habitats Regulations. However, as I am dismissing the appeal for the reasons above, I have not found it necessary to consider this matter any further as it would not alter my decision.

Reference is made to an appeal at 7 Skipton Close2 which relates to the subdivision of a site and the erection of a bungalow. Given the subsequent approval of a dwelling to the rear of [site address] the principle of a dwelling to the rear of the site has been accepted and as a result the appeal has limited relevance.

Concerns have been raised by interested parties in respect of the impact on their living conditions, parking and traffic impacts, drainage, ecology, and impact on trees. However, based on the evidence provided there is no reason to disagree with the Council’s conclusions on these matters.

The support comments from interested parties are noted and the benefits of the scheme are considered in the planning balance below.

The proposal would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area and substantial weight is afforded to this conflict with the development plan. The proposal would also fail to provide satisfactory living conditions for some of the future occupiers and I attach moderate weight to this harm.

In its favour the proposal would make more efficient use of land with the redevelopment of the bungalow developing a brownfield site, it would also increase densities in a location which is close to local services and sustainable transport options. Further it would add to the housing mix in the area. it is recognised that small sites can make an important contribution to meeting housing supply and it is beneficial that the scheme could potentially be built out quickly. These factors are given substantial weight.

Economic benefits during construction and from new residents also weigh in favour of the scheme. As do the renewable energy benefits and biodiversity net gain. However, it has not been demonstrated that the same benefits could not be achieved in an alternative less harmful scheme. These benefits therefore attract limited weight.

Given that a new dwelling has recently been approved within the rear garden and the existing bungalow would be replaced, the proposal would result in a net increase of seven dwellings. This represents a modest but nonetheless valuable contribution to housing supply, as highlighted in paragraph 73 of the Framework, particularly in the context of the Council’s acknowledged inability to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. With the Council able to demonstrate only a 2.1-year supply, and recognising that small and medium-sized sites play an important role in meeting local housing needs, the addition of seven dwellings carries significant weight in the planning balance. 2 APP/V1260/W/24/3346449

As a five-year supply of housing cannot be demonstrated paragraph 11(d) of the Framework, is engaged. Therefore, permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.

Taking all of the above into account, I consider that the harm identified in relation to the character and appearance of the area and the living conditions of future occupiers, significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. Consequently, the Framework does not indicate in favour of the proposal. The proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole and material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it.

Therefore, for the reasons given above the appeal is dismissed.