Appeal 6001504

The appeal is dismissed.

The proposal is for outline planning permission with access, appearance, layout and scale to be considered as part of the proposal. I have dealt with the appeal accordingly.

The proposal is a revised scheme to that which was the subject of a dismissed appeal dated 1 February 20241 (the 2024 appeal) following the Council’s non-determination of the planning application2.

I have determined the current appeal on the merits of the scheme before me, whilst also having regard to the 2024 appeal decision in so far as it is a material consideration.

The main issues are: • The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the Canford Cliffs Conservation Area; • Whether the proposal could provide a suitable sustainable drainage system in accordance with the requirements of national and local planning policies; and • The effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of No.[address] with particular regard to outlook impacts. 1 Appeal Ref APP/V1260/W/23/3315468 2 [name]/22/00577/F

The appeal site is located on the northern side of [address] within an established urban residential area and within the Canford Cliffs Conservation Area (CCCA). The character of the CCCA largely derives from the presence of dominant landscaping along front boundaries and within plots which creates a prevailing sylvan appearance. There are also mature trees to the rear of the plots providing a treed backdrop to the built residential development.

Notwithstanding a variety of plot sizes, large plots dominate the CCCA and a spacious verdant townscape prevails. There is a prevalence of 2-storey detached houses of a domestic scale and mass which front the road and are set well back into discrete plots with maturely landscaped front gardens.

The design and materials of dwellings within the CCCA is varied and a number have been redeveloped or extended over the years. This includes three or four storey properties within the wider CCCA. However, within the stretch of [address] within which the appeal site lies, the dwellings are two storeys set within large verdant plots.

The dwellings along the northern side of [address] are generally set well back from the road, with large gaps between properties and mature landscaping along their boundaries. On the southern side, buildings are closer to the frontage but are still set back behind driveways and parking areas, and they also benefit from considerable landscaping to the front.

As a result, the overall character is one of spaciousness and low-density domestic scale development which, combined with the mature landscaping, gives the locality a pleasant quiet and verdant feel. This is reinforced by the presence of street trees along parts of [address].

A similarity of building positioning in relation to the street and building scale and height, together with the presence of landscaped spacing to both sides and well laid out mature gardens all contribute to a sense of uniformity and regularity within the townscape.

The appeal property comprises a substantial, predominately two storey detached dwelling, with single storey additions to its side and rear. It sits within an extensive plot and is well set back from the road, with most of the front garden area being laid to lawn. Access is from [address], via a gated entrance. The boundaries of the site are well screened with mature trees and landscaping, including along the frontage. Notwithstanding this, parts of the existing dwelling remain visible from the public realm of the street.

The existing property comprises a late 20th century former bungalow which has been extended over the years to create the existing 2-storey house. It is not of such high architectural merit that its retention is warranted, and its replacement has been accepted in principle by the 2024 appeal decision.

Whilst the property does not contribute towards the significance of the CCCA in the same way as the older Edwardian or later villas that characterise the more historical parts of the CCCA, the existing domestic scale building does not detract from the character of the appeal site. Moreover, the building and the appeal site are wholly in keeping with the aforesaid character and appearance of this part of the CCCA and the site makes a positive contribution to the prevailing townscape.

As acknowledged by the 2024 appeal Inspector, the proposed replacement of the existing dwelling with a single building comprising a flatted development would retain the appearance of the site comprising a large single plot occupied by a single building.

As with the previous scheme, the current proposal would be set back to a similar building line and occupy a similar footprint to that of the existing dwelling. However, it would comprise a reduced size building compared to that previously proposed, in response to the previous Inspector’s concerns in respect of the proposed height, bulk, scale and mass of the new building being overly dominant within the street scene, to the detriment of the character and appearance of the CCCA.

The revised scheme would have a smaller built form, a lower ridge and a narrower width than the previously refused scheme, including a reduced footprint to both sides of the building. As such, it would result in less bulk and mass of new building being adjacent to both side boundaries compared to the 2024 appeal scheme. Also, architectural detailing would be simplified.

However, it would still comprise a substantial building comprising a mix of two and three storeys above a basement level of parking with communal pool and gym facilities. The lower ground floor would be accommodated under the building without impacting upon its overall height and massing and, as such, it would not be readily perceptible from public viewpoints. Moreover, the third floor would be accommodated within the roof space or within gable ends. As such, the new building would have a comparable eaves height with that of the existing dwelling.

However, the proposed building would still be notably higher than the existing building and would be of a greater depth, so that its bulk scale and mass would still be appreciably more sizeable. Significantly, the new building would be higher than the existing across all the building. Most notably, it would present a three-storey façade across the whole of the building frontage. This would replace a two-storey building which lowers down to single storey adjacent to the boundary with No.7.

The existing property is visible from the public realm of the road. The proposed higher ridge height and consistency of three storey development across the width of the plot, coupled with the proposed changes to the site entrance, would mean that the appeal scheme would be markedly more visible within the street scene than either the existing building or those nearby within this stretch of the north side of [address].

The perceived scale and height of the building would be compounded by the deep eaves to ridge depth of the roof in comparison with the proportions of the two floors below it. Two large front gable features would also serve to draw attention to the large overall size of the building and the extent of the third-floor accommodation. In contrast the existing building presents a notably shallower main roof pitch, without roof level accommodation, to the street.

As such, the proposal would introduce a form of development that, due to its combined height, bulk, scale and mass would represent an overly-dominate feature within the street scene. It would disrupt the unity of domestic scale two-storey built development which is a defining positive feature of this part of the road.

Moreover, the proposal would result in a full two and three storey height building projecting towards the rear of the site to replace the existing single storey subservient pool house. This would comprise an unduly dominant mass of building running alongside the access drive between Nos 7a and 11. The perceived mass of this part of the building would be emphasised by a blank eastern façade which would be devoid of architectural features and fenestration. The result would be a harmful erosion of the spacious setting of the property, particularly when combined with a long depth of three-storey-height building close to the western side of the site, which also contains large areas of unrelieved wall space.

I have taken account of the design of the existing building as well as the design approach taken by the appellant in respect of the proposed building. This includes architectural references to other developments within the CCCA, including front facing feature gables, steeply pitched roof elements, stone detailing around windows, and render and slate materials.

In this instance, however, I find the overall height, scale, mass and bulk of the proposed development to be such that it would be harmful to the character and appearance of the CCCA. It would amount to a significantly larger building that the Council’s conservation area appraisal seeks to resist. I do not consider the design of the proposal to be of such architectural merit as to justify this harm.

Neither do I consider that the retention of all the trees around the boundary of the appeal site would overcome this, notwithstanding that the retention of the trees serves to preserve the sylvan character of [address]. This is because, even considering the contribution of this landscaping, the proposal would still be visible within the street scene, noting that the front garden pine trees, though tall, have sparse lower branches which allow a high degree of intervisibility into the site from the public realm. Also, the site ground level rises gradually away from the street, so that the new building would be in a slightly elevated position in relation to the road.

In addition to the visual impact of the new building, the proposed realignment of the access drive within the site to a more central position with the provision of ramped access to the basement and building entrance, together with the proposed siting of bin and bike storage structures within the front garden area would result in the loss of a large part of the existing lawned garden to the front of the building. This would detrimentally erode the established pattern of development whereby domestic gardens wrap around the front and rear of the dwellings providing a spacious and soft landscaped surround to each dwelling.

I am not persuaded, based on the evidence before me, that the proposed new soft landscaping as shown on the submitted Landscape Plan No.549-1 would be sufficient to overcome my aforesaid concerns, noting that, whilst the proposal could be largely screened at present, I cannot be certain that the existing mature boundary soft landscaping would remain, nor that the proposed new landscaping would be planted, and this is not a reason to allow development that is unacceptable.

My attention has been drawn to other developments within the CCCA, including in respect of larger buildings and buildings with rear two-storey projections. [name] acknowledge their presence within the CCCA, based on the evidence before me, I find their designs, locations and surroundings to be different to those of the appeal site. As such, they do not provide a justification for the proposed development. In any case, I am not familiar with all the circumstances around the other developments to which I have been referred, and I am required to determine the appeal on its own merits.

The approach of developing the site with a single residential building which retains a large single plot is an element of the appeal scheme that would preserve the character of the CCCA. Moreover, I have found that the existing building is not of an architectural design that reflects the more historical properties within the CCCA. However, neither of these provide justification for a replacement building of such a scale and mass that it would harm the character and appearance of the area.

The statutory duty under S72(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 in respect of the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CCCA is a matter of considerable importance and weight. Paragraph 213 of the Framework states that any harm to, or loss of, significance of a designated heritage asset should require clear and convincing justification.

Having regard to Paragraph 215 of the Framework, the harm to the conservation area would be no greater than ‘less than substantial’. Less than substantial harm does not equate to less than substantial planning objection, and the Framework sets out the need to address ‘less than substantial harm’ against the public benefits of the proposal.

I have considered the provision of six additional dwellings in terms of their contribution to the supply of housing in the area, especially where it is accepted that the Council currently has an acute undersupply of housing due to only being able to demonstrate a housing land supply of 2.1 years against a 5-year housing requirement that includes a 20% buffer. Also, the evidence before me is that the proposal would provide a housing mix which accords with an identified need within the Borough3.

The proposal would also contribute to supporting local services and facilities and it would provide investment during the construction stage. The appellant is also willing to contribute towards the provision of off-site affordable housing in accordance with the Council’s adopted policy requirement of a £441,000 payment. I have also found that maintaining the existing plot size and the retention of existing trees on the site preserves the character and appearance of the CCCA. All these factors weigh in favour of the proposed development.

However, given the modest scale of the development, the associated benefits would also be modest and would carry only limited weight relative to the harm that I have identified to the character and appearance of the CCCA. They would not outweigh the less than substantial harm to the significance of the CCCA as a designated heritage asset. Given the national importance to protecting heritage assets relative to the modest benefits that would accrue from the appeal development, all of the considerations that weigh in favour of the proposal do not clearly outweigh the identified harm to the heritage asset to justify the development. Moreover, whilst there is a current under supply of housing land, 3 [name] 2015 such housing land supply issues are likely to be temporary, whilst harm to the CCCA would be permanent.

For the reasons given above, I therefore conclude that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the CCCA and it would cause less than substantial harm to its significance as a designated heritage asset. In the absence of any significant public benefits to outweigh this harm, the proposal would be contrary to Policy PP30 of the Poole Local Plan (2018) (the Local Plan). This policy, amongst other things, seeks to conserve the local character and historic environment, requiring developments within conservation areas to enhance or better reveal the significance and value of the site within the street scene and wider setting. The proposed development would also conflict with the Framework as it would fail to sustain the significance of the designated heritage asset where the public benefits would not outweigh the harm.

The site is located within [name] 1 and the Council’s level 1 SFRA mapping also confirms that the site is at low risk of flooding from other sources such as surface water or groundwater. Moreover, I have not been made aware of any flooding or drainage issues at the site.

The appellant has confirmed, in a SUDS statement, its intention to install permeable surfaces and a sustainable drainage system incorporating soakaways to manage surface water generated by the development.

However, no drainage plan has been submitted by the appellant nor has evidence of existing soil permeability and hydrology been provided. The appellant intends that these can be determined through appropriate testing prior to the installation of the drainage system, and that the matter of drainage for the development can be dealt with by means of a condition.

Paragraph 182 of the Framework requires that planning applications which could affect drainage on or around the site should incorporate sustainable drainage systems to control flow rates and reduce volumes of runoff, and which are proportionate to the nature and scale of the proposal. It goes on to state that sustainable drainage systems provided as part of proposals for major development should, amongst other things, take account of advice from the Lead Local Flood Authority (the LLFA).

In this case, in the absence of substantive evidence to demonstrate that the site is capable of supporting the proposed infiltration methods of managing surface water, such as ground investigation of the soils capacity to accept surface water and soakaway testing, and the submission of an appropriate drainage strategy, the LLFA is not satisfied that the matter can be dealt with by means of a condition.

Notwithstanding the existing residential use of the site, having regard to the scale of the development proposed and the aforesaid guidance within the Framework, I have no cogent reasons for taking a different approach.

Moreover, in respect of managing flood risk, Local Plan Policy PP38, requires [name] for all major developments. These should be appropriate to the location, and designed to manage surface water run-off in accordance with the appropriate technical standards, unless the relevant Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) indicates otherwise, or they are demonstrated to be impractical. There is no demonstrative evidence before me that either of the two latter apply to the appeal scheme.

The appellant has drawn my attention to a 2023 appeal decision4 in respect of an outline application for residential development where the Inspector was satisfied that this matter could be dealt with by means of a condition. Based on the information before me, it appears that the circumstances of that case differed significantly from those of the current appeal in that a drainage plan had been provided during the assessment of the planning application, a similar approach was proposed to that which existed on the site at that time, and the Council was satisfied that the matter could be dealt with by a condition. As such, that decision does not alter my view on this matter in respect of the current appeal, which I must determine on the merits of the information before me.

For the reasons given above, I therefore conclude that it has not been satisfactorily demonstrated that the proposal could provide a suitable sustainable drainage system in accordance with the requirements of national and local planning policies, having particular regard to Local Plan Policy PP38 and Paragraph 182 of the Framework.

As with the previously refused scheme, the proposal would include a new build element which would be sited parallel to, and within close proximity of, the eastern site boundary. It would largely replace the existing single storey rear pool house projection on the existing building but would be notably higher and sited closer to the side boundary than the existing rear projection.

To address the 2024 Inspector’s concerns in respect of the overbearing nature of the proposal upon the occupiers of the adjacent dwelling at No.[address], the current appeal scheme comprises a reduced eaves and ridge height and bulk of building adjacent to the eastern site boundary, together with a stepping back of the building from the boundary compared to the previously proposed building siting.

This would result in a lesser impact upon the outlook from No.11 than that of the previously refused scheme. However, notwithstanding a lower eaves height and shallower roof form in the rear-most part of its eastern elevation, the proposal would still result in a substantial length of two-storey plus pitched roof-built development close to the eastern appeal site boundary. This would replace an existing predominantly single storey rear building and a shallow roofed two-storey structure which is notably lower than that of the proposal.

The access lane between the appeal site and No.11, which serves Nos.9 and [address], would provide some separation between the new building and No.11 as well as a considerable amount of boundary screening due to being maturely landscaped along both sides.

However, given the proximity of the dwelling at No.11 to its western site boundary and the height of the new development, this would not be sufficient to mitigate the oppressive and overbearing impact upon the outlook from that property arising 4 [name]/V1260/W/22/3304905 from the additional scale, bulk and mass of the proposed new build, including upon views from the hall and lounge of that property, its front garden and front patio.

These harmful impacts are not justified or sufficiently mitigated by the removal of the existing upper floor balcony on the front of the appeal property which allows for limited overlooking to part of the garden furthest away from the property at No.11.

For the above reasons, I therefore conclude that the proposal would materially harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No.[address] with particular regard to outlook impacts. As such, the appeal scheme would be contrary to Local Plan Policy PP27, in so much as this policy, amongst other things, seeks to ensure that new development is compatible with surrounding uses and would not result in a harmful impact upon amenity for local residents and future occupiers considering, inter alia, whether the development is overbearing or oppressive.

This accords with Paragraph 135 of the Framework in so much as it seeks to ensure that developments will function well with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.

The appeal site lies within 5km of the internationally protected [name], which is also part of the designated Dorset Heathlands Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar Site, and the Dorset Heaths Special Area of Conservation (SAC). It is also within close proximity to [name], which is a SPA, SSSI and Ramsar Site.

The appellant provided a [name] (UU) as part of the planning application. This secures a financial contribution towards the [name] and Monitoring (SAMMs), as sought by the Council. As such, this matter did not comprise a reason for refusal. Notwithstanding this, were I minded to allow the appeal, as the competent authority I would have been obliged to consider this issue.

However, given my conclusion on the other main issues, it is not necessary for me to carry out an Appropriate Assessment as required under The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) (the Habitats Regulations) or to consider this matter further, since it would not alter the outcome of this appeal.

The appellant has referred to the Council’s procedures during the determination of the planning application, which it considers led to an expectation that planning permission would be granted. This is not a matter for consideration as part of this appeal, which I must determine on the merits of the appeal scheme before me.

Third parties have raised other concerns including in respect of impacts upon the living conditions of future occupiers of the development, ecology, noise, traffic, highway safety and parking, waste disposal, loss of family homes, strain on household services, precedent and restrictive covenants, However, these matters do not alter the main issues which I have identified as the basis for determining this appeal.

The Council has confirmed that it cannot demonstrate a 5-year supply of deliverable housing sites as required by the Framework. As such, Paragraph 11 of the Framework applies, which states that relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered to be up to date where a 5-year housing land supply cannot be demonstrated.

Paragraph 11 d) of the Framework states that where the policies that are most important are out of date, permission should be granted, unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole having particular regard to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well-designed places and providing affordable homes individually or in combination, or, where the application of policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance, referred to in Paragraph 11d)i provides a strong reason for refusing the development proposed.

In this instance, the appeal site is subject to policies in the Framework that seek to protect designated heritage assets, and, in concluding on the first main issue, I have already found that the Framework policy relating to heritage assets in Paragraph 215 indicates that development should be restricted. As such, notwithstanding the current absence of a Framework compliant supply of housing land, the presumption in favour of sustainable development in Paragraph 11 of the Framework is not engaged.

Paragraph 8 of the Framework defines the three dimensions of sustainable development as performing economic, social and environmental objectives. When judged against some of the core planning principles of the Framework, the appeal proposal would perform well in that it would be in a sustainable location for new residential development having regard to accessibility to local facilities and services and public transport routes.

Paragraph 61 of the Framework refers to boosting significantly the supply of homes. The proposal would make a modest contribution towards addressing the housing supply deficit and it could be built out relatively quickly, having regard to Paragraph 73 of the Framework. There would also be economic benefits as a result of the construction of the new dwellings, and economic and social benefits as a result of their future occupation. The proposal would also contribute to the Framework objective of creating mixed and balanced communities by providing a financial contribution towards the provision of affordable housing.

The above benefits weigh in favour of the development, and I afford them moderate weight, having regard to the modest size of the proposal.

However, a high standard of design is also a key aspect of sustainable development. The harm I have identified to the character and appearance of the conservation area, neighbouring living conditions and flood risk would be significant. As a result, the social objectives of sustainable development of fostering well-designed, beautiful and safe places and providing a good standard of residential amenity, and the environmental objectives of protecting and enhancing our built and historic environment and adapting to climate change would not be achieved.

Accordingly, having given careful consideration of the balance of factors, I consider that, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, and the proposal would not be a sustainable form of development. The conflict with the development plan is not outweighed by other considerations including the Framework.

Whilst the Framework encourages the effective use of land in meeting the need for homes and requires the Council to approach decisions in a positive and creative way, these matters are not unqualified and would not address or outweigh the aforementioned harm that I have identified in respect of the main issues.

The Council has not identified any harm in respect of other issues, including the living conditions of future occupiers of the proposal, highway safety and parking, tree impacts, biodiversity, bin storage and air quality. However, as these are requirements of planning policy and legislation, in terms of the planning balance, the absence of identified harm in respect of these matters is a neutral factor that weighs neither for nor against the development.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.