Appeal 6002385

[name], B and C are dismissed.

The proposal relates to the erection of a new two-storey dwelling, consisting of three different designs, each refused by the Council and being the subject of a separate appeal. Appeal A relates to a contemporary design with grey brickwork at ground floor and white render on the first floor. It would have red clay tiles on its pitched roof. Appeal B is a contemporary design with a white render section at ground floor and split cladding on the second floor; being half black/dark grey and half wood effect. It would have two mono-pitched roofs with different ridge heights. Appeal C is also a contemporary design with dry stone walls on the ground floor, a black/dark grey standout seamed metal cladding feature inset with timber cladding on the first floor, and a flat roof. Each design is generally similar in scale and footprint and would be located on the footprint of the existing converted building. Appeal Decision 6002383, 6002384 and 6002385 Where relevant I will discuss the effects of each scheme separately and elsewhere, together, where they have shared/similar effects.

The appellant asserts that the proposal is a replacement dwelling, with the existing dwelling being formed through a previous garage conversion. During my visit I noted that the site was contained by fencing and had a side gate that provided access towards the main house. However, it is clear from submitted evidence that the converted garage is ancillary to the main dwelling. This has been demonstrated by the Council in referencing two unsuccessful Certificates for Lawful Development of an [name] made in 2015 and 2018, notwithstanding the Council’s acceptance of this proposal’s description of development. Therefore, like the Council, I have assessed this proposal as an erection of a new dwelling and the formal subdivision of the plot to create a separate dwelling unit, rather than being for a replacement dwelling.

The appeal site is within the Brankstone Park & [address] (BPCG) Conservation Area wherein I have a statutory duty under Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the area.

For each scheme individually, the main issues are: • Whether each of the proposed scheme’s A, B and/or C would preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the BPCG Conservation Area, and • Whether each scheme A, B and/or C would create satisfactory living conditions for future occupiers with particular regard to access to daylight and sunlight.

And in consideration of appeals A, B and C the main issues are: • The effect of the proposal on the integrity of the Dorset Heathlands Special Protection Area (SPA), • The effect of the proposed development on the [name] • Whether the proposal would comply with either the Self-Build requirements of the exemption of the Biodiversity Gain Requirements Regulations [2024] or would deliver the required [name].

The appeal site is within the BPCG Conservation Area. The area predominantly consists of large dwellings of various traditional styles. These are set within deep and wide plots, as can be seen within the Council’s conservation area boundary plan. Some traditional homes have been replaced with more contemporary dwellings which largely maintain the quality and scale of the more traditional housing stock. Many dwellings also include small scale ancillary buildings such as garage blocks and other outbuildings. Properties are mostly set behind dense tree and hedge planting creating a strong verdant character to the area. Appeal Decision 6002383, 6002384 and 6002385

Accordingly, the significance of the conservation area relates to its large residential plots, set within a verdant setting, the predominant use of red brick and render with clay tiled roofs and with vegetation forming the dominant character of the streetscene.

The site is a former garage building that has previously been converted to residential use, this is diminutive and subservient to the plot’s main dwelling and thus presents itself to the street as a small building, in keeping with the character and appearance of small ancillary buildings within the area. The current form of development on site accords with the Council’s Conservation Area Appraisal [2006] (CAA) which requires “development to reflect the low-density pattern in the area, retaining detached houses in large well landscaped plots” [pg 39].

The proposed dwelling would subdivide the existing large plot, creating a narrow plot. The reduction in width of the existing frontage and introduction of a small plot, would be out of keeping with the size of adjacent plots. This would also have a substantially different ratio of footprint-to-plot than local plots. Such a different ratio means that the scope to accommodate complementary and extensive landscape planting would be reduced to extent that the proposal would seem out of character with its surroundings.

In terms of appearance, the design of all three proposed designs are non-traditional forms of development. New development in conservation areas should avoid pastiche forms of design, as such contemporary designs should be supported in principle subject to it being high-quality.

The existing dwelling on site is a large arts and crafts rendered dwelling with hipped roofs and wide and tall chimneys. The scheme of appeal A would employ brick and render in horizontal banding. This design would have a traditional pitched roof, with a hipped roof to its frontage that takes some inspiration from the main house. However, the limited elevational details show a design that has a rather utilitarian form. It has mismatched windows and a palette of materials that, whilst seen locally, have not been assembled together with clear logic or explanation. As such, the design appears poorly considered and fails to deliver the high-quality design evident in local built form. Consequently, the design includes features that would prevent it from complementing, or being well integrated, with the local area.

The scheme of appeal B would also use brick and render as appeal A, but includes two separate mono-pitched roofs. This may reflect modern development in the area, but my attention has not been drawn to such examples, and in any event, the accompanying details of this design are not of sufficient scope to demonstrate the building would be a high-quality design. The roof form and materials seem rather random and thus do not demonstrate a well realised form of contemporary development. Appeal C design Appeal Decision 6002383, 6002384 and 6002385 Appeal C would include a drystone wall, and metal and timber cladding elements. The use of these materials are not identified as being found locally, and thus the design would fail to successfully integrate the proposal into its context. Consequently, this design, without accompanying explanation or contextual analysis providing justification, would represent an overt and disharmonious addition to the area.

Furthermore, each scheme would be narrow and close to the highway in comparison to most local development. Also, the plot is part of the driveway access to the main dwelling, exposing most of the site’s frontage to the public realm. As such, the prominence, proximity to the highway and having limited scope to accommodate frontage landscaping, would introduce a strident feature within the streetscene that would emphasise the adverse effects of the proposal. The Council’s CAA identifies that varied architecture is a characteristic of the area and that the area should retain a mix of building styles. However, this provides only limited support for each proposal as their overall scale, proximity to the highway and plot size would not be in character.

Accordingly, the appearance of such a dwelling would erode the established character of the area, where the extent of frontage vegetation along the street would provide only modest screening. Furthermore, I am unconvinced that the mature trees to the rear of the dwelling would materially assist the proposal in blending it into the existing verdant setting.

Although the Council’s policies do not state a minimum size for plots and gardens policy PP28, with respect to plot severance schemes, require development to preserve an area’s character. The appellant’s assessment of local plot sizes demonstrates that some local plots, such as [address] (No 4a) and 18 and [address] (No’s 18 and 20), are comparable to the appeal site. However, No 4a is uncharacteristic of the conservation area and No’s 18 and 20 are outside of the BPCG Conservation Area boundary. As such, these local examples do not materially affect the predominant character of the conservation area.

Under the terms of the Framework, the degree of harm to the significance of the BPCG Conservation Area as a designated heritage asset would be less than substantial. Paragraph 215 of the Framework requires, for development to be found to be acceptable, less than substantial harm must be outweighed by public benefits, which I shall turn to in my Heritage Balance below.

Consequently, the proposal with respect to appeals A, B and C, would not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the BPCG conservation area and would fail to comply with Section 72(1) of the Act. As such, each proposal would conflict with policies PP27, PP28 and PP30 of the Poole Local Plan [2018](LP). These seek, among other matters, for development to reflect the local pattern of development, for plot severance schemes to preserve an areas residential character and for development to preserve or enhance heritage assets. Living conditions Appeal Decision 6002383, 6002384 and 6002385

The footprint of the schemes associated with appeals A, B and C are similar. Each have front facing and rear facing windows at ground and first floor and have similar internal layouts. Each show a main living/ kitchen room at the rear, with rear facing windows only, and a main bedroom that would have a rear facing window and a small side window. The rear garden of the proposed plot is currently occupied by many mature trees. These are subject to a Tree Preservation Order and provide a tall and wide tree canopy over the rear garden of the site, with views to the side of the plot being partially open. The rear of the dwelling would be west facing where the existing trees within the rear garden create substantial shading of the rear garden.

Accordingly, the garden area is, and would, be an overshadowed and shaded space. This would provide limited and poor quality useable external garden space for future occupiers. Sunlight to rear windows would be compromised throughout the day especially in the afternoon and evenings. The side window of the rear bedroom would provide some enhanced sunlight, but this would be limited due to its size and the room’s orientation. Furthermore, for similar reasons daylight levels would be poor within rear facing habitable rooms and to the immediate rear of the proposed dwelling.

The appellant asserts that the site provides adequate outdoor space for activities such as drying clothes, garden furniture and other paraphernalia. However, this has not been demonstrated on the block plan. The existing rear garden is occupied by dense tree cover and therefore the scheme would have limited scope to provide useable outdoor space.

Consequently, for the proposals of appeals A, B and C, the scheme would result in poor quality internal spaces where habitable rooms would not gain adequate levels of sunlight or daylight. As such, the proposals would not create acceptable living conditions for future occupiers with respect to sunlight and daylight. Accordingly, the proposals would conflict with LP policy PP27 with respect to effect on living conditions. This seeks, among other matters, for development to provide satisfactory external and internal space for new occupiers.

The site is within the zone of influence of several [name]. The existing accommodation on site is established as being an ancillary activity associated with the main house. The proposal would result in the creation of a new dwelling that would be subject to assessment under the Habitat Regulations.

Access into the [name] would be likely by future occupiers of the proposal, as found by the ‘Dorset Heathlands Planning Framework’ [2020]. The impact of increase recreation disturbance would, in combination with other projects, lead to likely significant effects on the integrity of the SPA. The Council’ Framework requires mitigation to fund [name] and Monitoring (SAMM) in respect of the ongoing protection of the Heathlands. However, no mitigation has been offered by the appellant.

The Poole Harbour SPA and Ramsar Site would be also subject to increased recreational impact through the proposal which, in combination with other projects, would be likely to adversely affect the integrity of this SPA. The Council identify that a SAMM contribution, as sought by the [name] [2020], Appeal Decision 6002383, 6002384 and 6002385 would be required to provide suitable mitigation to address the anticipated adverse effect.

Consequently, without suitable mitigation, the proposal would erode the integrity of the identified [name]. As such, the proposal with respect to appeals A, B and C, would conflict with LP policies PP32 and PP39. These seek, among other matters, for development to only be allowed where it would not lead to an adverse effect upon the integrity, either alone or in combination, directly or indirectly, on European and internationally important sites.

The proposal is advanced as a self-build project, this would make the scheme exempt of biodiversity net gain (BNG) requirements of the Environment Act. However, the proposal is not submitted with a legal mechanism to secure the dwelling as self-build and confirm the exemption.

The requirement for [name] (BNG) is sought under a statutory framework introduced by Schedule 7A of the TCPA 1990 (as inserted by Schedule 14 of the Environment Act 2021). Under the statutory framework for BNG, subject to some exceptions, every grant of planning permission is deemed to have been granted subject to the condition that the biodiversity gain objective is met. As such, unless specifically exempt, the development would be subject to the mandatory Biodiversity Gain Plan (BGP) condition, which requires the delivery of at least 10% BNG. This can be achieved through on-site and/or off-site biodiversity gains or statutory biodiversity credits.

The BGP condition excludes development that would not impact on a priority habitat, be less than [address] metres (e.g. 5m by 5m) of on-site habitat and 5 metres of linear habitats such as hedgerows. The scheme would create a new dwelling essentially within, or similar, to the footprint of the existing building. As such, any addition to the existing building’s footprint would be limited, resulting in no significant biodiversity effect. Accordingly, due to the exemption, it appears that the BGP condition for the proposals subject to appeals A, B and C would not apply.

The evidence suggests that [address] (No 4a) was originally a domestic garage. This gained lawful use in 2014 as an office and was then later subject to [name] to be converted to a dwelling. This then gained planning permission in 2015 to be replaced by a chalet bungalow. Now constructed, this dwelling is less prominent than the proposal and partially screened from the highway. Accordingly, the planning history of the neighbouring dwelling is different to the proposal. As such, its planning context and visual effects differ from the proposed scheme attracting modest weight only in favour of the proposal.

The appellant has submitted appeal decisions for development at 2 (No 2) and [address] (No 12A). [name] 12a the Inspector found that a proposal to subdivide the plot did not necessarily result in harm to the conservation area and the scheme could be accommodated without undermining its character. In considering the submitted plans this plot seems to be wider and deeper than the proposed scheme and had greater screening from the highway. Furthermore, in the appeal decision at No 2 the Inspector found that whilst the smaller plot would Appeal Decision 6002383, 6002384 and 6002385 be much smaller than is characteristic of the housing along the street, it would not be an obvious feature when seen from the road. The associated block plan shows a dwelling recessed deep into the plot, set away from the highway and heavily screened.

A further appeal decision has been submitted for [address] (No 6). The scheme for No 6 was for a subdivision of a plot into two, providing two detached houses. The Council had stated that the proposal would retain the gaps to neighbouring houses and would therefore be in character. These were designed with one front door on its side, creating the impression of a single large house on a large plot. The design features and distance to neighbours would not be the case for the proposed scheme as it would be immediately adjacent to No 4a.

For an allowed appeal at 2 [address] for 25 apartments, the Inspector found that the contemporary design would add to the mix of architectural styles that is characteristic of the area. Nonetheless, the Inspector also found that whilst larger than [address], which was proposed to be demolished, the scheme would be similar in proportions to other buildings within the conservation area. Although plans have not been submitted with this example, it appears that the scheme was of a scale where it would complement the local character of large plots accommodating large buildings.

At the final comments stage, the appellant has drawn attention to a recent allowed appeal decision at [address]. This was for the subdivision of a plot to create two new dwellings. The Inspector found the scheme would remain subordinate and sympathetic to the appeal property. Whilst the appellant finds similarities to the proposal, I find its context to be materially different, being a different conservation area, having bigger plots and wider dwellings.

Each case must be considered on its own merits. The examples of approved development do not demonstrate a clear or compelling reason to allow the proposal, each case being different and within its own context.

I have identified above that the scheme of appeals A, B and C, would cause less than substantial harm to the heritage significance of the BPCG Conservation Area. It must be noted that even less than substantial harm to a designated heritage asset carries great weight.

In terms of public benefits, the proposal would deliver a dwelling within a District where a 2.1-year housing land supply is in existence, which falls significantly below the level of supply required by national policy. An additional dwelling would make a valuable contribution to the Council’s housing land supply and thus would contribute to the Government’s objective to significantly boost the supply of homes. Given the current housing land supply position, the benefits of delivery of even one new home attracts moderate weight in favour of the development.

The appellant states that in terms of public benefits the scheme would deliver a larger family house, which is in demand in the area. Although, it is unclear whether there is significant demand for the specific type of housing proposed as no evidence is before me on this matter. The appeal scheme would also provide construction jobs and some local investment during its build out, as well as longer term expenditure in the local economy. Also, the proposal would employ Appeal Decision 6002383, 6002384 and 6002385 renewable and low carbon energy resources to ensure it is energy efficient once in use. I also note that No 4a is similar in character to the proposed scheme. However, I attach moderate to limited weight to each of these benefits considering the scale of development proposed and the modest size of the scheme in question.

Therefore, overall, I attach moderate weight to the combined benefits of the proposal.

Whilst the proposed development’s public benefits attract moderate weight when considered cumulatively, they would not outweigh the great weight applied to the harm that would be caused to the heritage significance of the BPCG Conservation Area.

At 1 April 2024 the Council had a housing land supply of 2.1 years against a 5- year housing requirement that includes a 20% buffer. In consideration of the Council’s housing land supply position, paragraph 11(d) i) of the Framework indicates that the presumption in favour of sustainable development should be engaged unless the application of policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provide a strong reason for refusing the development proposed. Footnote 7 of paragraph 11(d) of the Framework lists designated heritage assets and habitat sites as assets of particular importance.

For the avoidance of doubt, as I have found harm to the significance of the BPCG Conservation Area and the [name], these provide strong reasons for refusing planning permission. As such, the presumption in favour of sustainable development is not engaged. Consequently, because of the harm I have found, there is conflict with [name] PP27, PP28, PP30, PP32 and PP39.

Accordingly, the proposal associated with appeals A, B and C, conflict with the development plan when read as a whole and the material considerations I have identified in my Heritage Balance above – even though attracting moderate positive weight in the context of a substantial housing land supply shortfall – do not outweigh that conflict.

For the reasons given, the appeals are dismissed.