Appeal 6002021

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of a new metal frame retractable roof pergola to rear courtyard garden at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/25/03124/FUL, subject to the following conditions:

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

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing numbers: Y&C14.25.P01 [name] - Location Plan and Site Plan, Y&C09.25.P03 [name] - Proposed External Plan and Y&C09.25.P05 -[name].

The development hereby permitted shall be constructed in the materials shown on plan no. Y&C09.25.P03 [name].

I have used the Council’s description of development as set out on the Decision Notice in the banner heading above. This is more concise than that used by the appellant, and I note that the revised description has been used on the appeal form.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host building and whether it would preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Westbourne Conservation Area.

The appeal site comprises [site address] public house and its grounds, including outside seating areas to the front and rear of the building, outbuildings, a service yard and parking areas. The site, which is located within the Westbourne Conservation Area (CA), occupies a prominent position on the corner of [address] and [address]. The Council’s submissions set out that, so far as pertinent to the appeal, the significance of the CA is derived from its compact shopping area consisting of high quality late Victorian and Edwardian properties. Further, the appeal property, by virtue of its condition, age and architectural style, contributes positively to the character and appearance of the CA. Given my observations on site, I have no reason to disagree.

The appeal proposal seeks the erection of a pergola within the courtyard to the rear of the building, to provide cover over the existing outdoor sitting area to enable the use of the space during inclement weather. It would comprise a metal frame with a flat retractable PVC roof and would be situated alongside an existing corrugated metal roof pergola which is to be retained. In addition to the rectangular footprint of the pergola, the drawings indicate additional areas of glazing to infill the spaces and provide cover between the pergola and the adjoining outbuildings and site boundary.

Due to the position and scale of the existing outbuildings immediately to the rear of the public house, together with boundary treatment and the adjoining built form, the existing rear courtyard has a strong sense of enclosure. While the use of aluminium and PVC may contrast with the host building and other buildings within the CA, the structure would consist of a slimline frame with open sides and a retractable roof that would be open for at least some of the time, particularly during the summer months. Moreover, despite its unconventional shape overall, so as to achieve the desired coverage, the pergola and glazed infill sections would be generally modest in scale and visually subservient to the host building, with a flat roof design which would be akin to that of the public house.

While the development would physically connect the host building to the outbuilding, the proposed overall design and lightweight materials would maintain a clear distinction between the two components, so as to ensure the legibility of the building. Thus, although the pergola and glazed infill pieces would cover a significant part of the rear courtyard, including the gap between the buildings, by virtue of the form and design of the structure, it would not be an unduly incongruous feature in relation to the host building or when viewed within the immediate context of the existing enclosed courtyard.

Furthermore, having regard to the location of the pergola, to the rear of the public house, only the uppermost part would be visible in the street scene from limited vantage points between the existing buildings, where it would be set back from the highway. Taking the above factors into account, the proposed development would not disrupt the overall architectural merit of the host building or the contribution it makes to the significance of the CA.

Accordingly, the proposed development would not detract from the character and appearance of the host building and would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA and would not undermine its significance as a designated heritage asset. In that regard it would accord with the aims of Policies CS39 and CS41 of the Bournemouth Local Plan: [name], adopted October 2012 that seek to protect designated heritage assets from proposals that would adversely affect their significance and require development to be of a high quality design that, among other things, respects the site and its surroundings, enhances the character, local distinctiveness, and conserves and improves townscape.

In addition to the standard timescale condition, a condition specifying the relevant plans is necessary to provide certainty. As the submitted plans show the materials to be used, a condition to require the submission of external facing and roofing materials is not necessary. I have therefore substituted that suggested by the Council with a condition to require materials to be used as shown on the submitted drawings, in the interests of the character and appearance of the area.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed.