Appeal 6001352

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for side and roof single storey extensions, storey and a half extension to rear at [site address] , Bournemouth, [postcode] , in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/25/01946/HOU, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

The Council’s first reason for refusal alleges that the drawings before it were insufficient and inaccurate, particularly in relation to the site’s topography and the depiction of the level change at the rear of the garden.

I have reviewed the submitted plans, including the elevations and sectional drawings. While there are minor inconsistencies, the overall dimensions of the development can be clearly judged in relation to the existing building. I am therefore satisfied that they enable me to reach a reasoned decision, and I have proceeded on that basis.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: • the character and appearance of the area; and • the living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring property, having regard to outlook and light.

[address] is characterised by modest single-storey bungalows of simple form, with some later alterations and roof enlargements visible in the street. Despite these variations, the prevailing character remains one of low, compact buildings with coherent roof profiles and a generally consistent scale. The appeal property occupies a prominent position at the head of the cul-de-sac, where changes to built form are readily perceived from both within [address] and, through gaps in development, from [address] and [address].

The proposal includes the removal of the existing detached garage and the construction of a side extension that would infill much of the space between the dwelling and the southern boundary. Although this would increase the overall width of built form on the plot, the extension would remain subordinate to the main roof and would not disrupt the established rhythm of spacing between dwellings. From the public realm, it would read as a proportionate and coherent addition.

The rear extension would project a considerable distance into the garden and, due to the site’s falling ground levels, would appear taller than the existing rear elevation. However, public views of the rear of the property are limited and largely filtered by boundary treatments and vegetation. While glimpsed views would be possible from [address] and through the driveway gaps of [address], these would be oblique and fleeting, and would not materially alter the perception of the area’s overall character.

The proposed roof alterations would introduce a combination of hipped, low-pitched and flat-roofed elements. Although this would depart from the simplicity of the existing roof form, the ridge height would remain similar to that of the existing building, and the resulting roofscape would not appear unduly prominent. Any visual awkwardness in the transition between roof elements would be appreciable only at close range and would not give rise to material harm.

For these reasons, the proposal would not cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area. It therefore complies with Policy CS41 of the Bournemouth Local Plan: [name] (2012) (CS), insofar as it requires development to achieve high-quality design that respects the scale, form, massing, materials and pattern of the surrounding area.

The appeal property is positioned slightly higher than the adjacent dwelling at No. 23. The rear garden falls away from the house, creating a noticeable change in levels across the depth of the plot. No. 23 has a detached garage running along the shared boundary.

[name]. 23, there is a single rear-facing window that looks directly towards the garage, with only oblique views towards the appeal site. The neighbouring property also has a conservatory, but its principal aspect is over the garden and away from the appeal site, with its side-facing windows offering only views towards the boundary. The patio area immediately adjoining the dwelling, conservatory and garage is enclosed by existing built form and the boundary fence. As a result, this part of the garden already experiences a pronounced sense of enclosure.

The proposed extension would project a substantial distance beyond the existing rear elevation and would sit close to the shared boundary. Owing to the site’s falling ground levels, it would read as a taller structure when viewed from within the appeal site. However, when experienced from No. 23, the extension would be perceived against the backdrop of the existing arrangement of buildings and boundary treatments that already define the neighbour’s immediate outlook.

From the patio area, the extension would be seen beyond the existing enclosure formed by the neighbouring dwelling, conservatory, garage and boundary fence. Given the already confined nature of this space, the proposal would not materially alter the sense of enclosure or introduce a new visual relationship that would significantly diminish the usability or enjoyment of this part of the garden. From the conservatory, the principal outlook is across the garden and away from the appeal site, and the proposal would not intrude into these primary views. The rear-facing window in the dwelling, whose outlook is already dominated by the garage, would not experience a materially worsened relationship as a result of the extension.

Although the extension would increase the overall massing near the boundary, the orientation of the dwellings and the position of existing built structures would together limit any overshadowing. The submitted plans and my observations on site do not indicate that the development would materially reduce daylight or sunlight to habitable rooms or to the most frequently used part of the neighbouring garden. I therefore find that the impact on light would fall within acceptable limits.

Additionally, the appeal site benefits from a large, open rear garden that extends well beyond the footprint of the proposed extension. This wider garden area forms the principal outdoor amenity space for No. 23 and would remain unaffected in terms of openness, daylight and usability. The proposal would not materially alter the quality of this substantial part of the neighbour’s garden.

For these reasons, the proposal would not cause unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of No. 23, having regard to outlook and light. It therefore complies with Policy CS41 of the CS, insofar as it requires development to protect the living conditions of neighbouring residents.

The Council has suggested a number of conditions. [name] have amended the wording, I have done so in the interests of precision, clarity and enforceability, and to ensure consistency with national guidance on the use of planning conditions.

A condition requiring the development to begin within three years is reasonable and necessary to comply with the statutory requirements of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. A further condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans is reasonable and necessary for certainty and to ensure that the scheme is implemented as assessed in this

There are protected trees close to the boundary of the appeal site, and the Council’s Tree Officer has confirmed that the development can proceed subject to appropriate safeguards. Conditions are therefore necessary to secure the protection of retained trees during construction, to ensure that replacement planting is delivered to an appropriate standard and to secure the long-term establishment of new trees. Together, these measures are reasonable and necessary in the interests of the character and appearance of the area.

Finally, a condition preventing the use of the flat roof as a balcony, roof garden or similar amenity area is necessary to protect the privacy of neighbouring occupiers. The roof is not designed or assessed as an external amenity space and its use as such could give rise to overlooking and noise disturbance.

For the reasons given above, the appeal should be allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the Location Plan and drawing nos P1139-004, P1139-005, P1139-006, P1139-007, P1139-008 and P1139-009.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the recommendations and details contained in the [name] & Tree Protection Plan compiled by NB Tree Management and dated 11 August 2025.

Prior to the construction of the development hereby permitted above damp-course level, a full specification of all proposed tree planting shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The specification shall include the quantity, size, species, and positions or density of all trees to be planted, how they will be planted and protected and the proposed time of planting. All trees shall be planted in accordance with the details and times stated in the approved specification and in accordance with [name] (BS 8545: Trees: from nursery to independence in the landscape – Recommendations) (or an equivalent [name] if replaced). If, within a period of 10 years from the date of planting, a tree planted in accordance with the approved specification (or any tree planted in replacement for it) is removed, uprooted, destroyed or dies or becomes seriously damaged or defective, another tree of the same size and species as that originally planted shall be planted at the same place within the first planting season following the removal, uprooting, destruction or death of the original tree, unless the Local Planning Authority gives its written consent to any variation.

The flat roof area of the extension hereby permitted shall not be used as a balcony, roof garden or similar amenity area. End of Schedule