Appeal 6002444

The appeal is dismissed.

The Council’s first Reason for Refusal refers to the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area including the Branksome Park and [address] Conservation Area. However, it has since confirmed that the appeal site is not within a conservation area. I have therefore disregarded the Council’s reference to this heritage asset.

Planning permission was granted in 2023 for the erection of decking adjacent to the beach promenade and close to the associated beach café. Conditions 2 and 5 prevent the retention of tables and chairs on the decking at nighttime. The S73 application seeks to revise the approved plans condition to add a fixed seating layout and revise condition 5 to remove reference to the removal of furniture each day, allowing it to remain in place at all times. Appeal 6002444

The main issues are: • Whether the conditions are reasonable and necessary, with particular regard to the character and appearance of the area including the effect on the identified heritage asset, and • Whether the conditions are reasonable and necessary, with particular regard to noise, crime and disorder and nearby residential properties.

The proposed decking would be located within the beach adjacent to the promenade, in front of the existing beach restaurant. The existing restaurant is undergoing extension and alteration. The surrounding area consists of leisure activities, car parking, open areas and residential uses. The site is also close to [name], deemed to be a non-designated heritage asset (NDHA).

The site is within the [name] and Shoreline character area, that makes an important contribution to Poole’s identity, local distinctiveness and landscape character. The coastline provides a significant scenic feature, that close to the site can be regarded as generally open and consisting of only low-density development retaining the coastline’s general sense of openness.

The provision of tables and chairs on the decking would result in some, albeit limited, adverse visual effect on the scenic coastline when it is considered together with existing buildings and furniture within the site’s context. Condition 5 requires the removal of all tables and chairs from the decking between the hours of 22:00 and 08:00. This would therefore require the removal of furniture at a time when darkness and limited numbers of people would pass the site. The benefits to the character and appearance of the area, of the removal of the furniture at night, would be minimal on this basis lending support for these to remain in situ.

Nonetheless, the proposal includes the addition of fixed planters that were not originally proposed and would be likely to be immune from the requirements of condition 5. The planters would create a relatively substantial connected mass that would increase the scale of the decking and have an adverse impact on the area’s sense of spaciousness. This would moderately increase the visual harm of the decking in the daytime. At night, if condition 5 were removed, this would also result in further harm to the character and appearance of the area, albeit modest.

The adjacent pavilion is a single-storey curved building with a classical style. It is identified as an eye-catching example of a 1920’s seaside municipal building. As such, the significance of the NDHA derives from its architectural and historic interest. The provision of the decking and furniture would result in an adverse effect on the setting of the NDHA through the addition of visual clutter that interrupts some views of the pavilion, featuring in either its foreground or background. Although the greatest adverse visual effect of the furniture would occur in the daytime, within the permitted hours of use of the decking, the additional planters would exacerbate this effect. Appeal 6002444

Therefore, the retention of furniture in situ at night, and the addition of planters, would result in a modest additional adverse effect on the NDHA’s setting and result in an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the area. Accordingly, the conditions serve a useful purpose to limit the overall adverse effect of the development and its adverse effect on the setting of the NDHA.

The approved scheme requires the deck furniture to be removed at night. During my site visit I observed a range of existing sitting areas, including beachside benches, undercover seating areas within the pavilion and a children’s park to the rear of the pavilion. Therefore, there are several places where people could gather at night and potentially cause disturbance. However, the approved seating area is of substantially greater scale than the noted existing seating areas and could therefore become a powerful magnet in attracting large groups of people and provide a substantial new gathering point.

The appeal site is relatively close to several residential properties. [name] identify that offences such as criminal damage, drug possession and violence are prevalent within the beachfront area and occur at higher rates when compared to the sector average. There is a specific police operation to target crime and antisocial activity in the area, and the Police note that seating areas are a natural place for people to congregate. It is therefore likely that the proposal would become a popular gathering point. Furthermore, associated noise and disturbance could be created affecting night-time tranquillity and harming local resident’s living

Therefore, I am unconvinced that the appellant’s assertions that the proposed seating area would not present a particular target for anti-social behaviour. Local alternative seating opportunities are significantly smaller and do not offer the concealment opportunities that the proposed scheme would provide. I am also unconvinced that a CCTV system would readily address these matters, particularly being cognisant that another condition prevents the installation of lighting.

As such, I find that the decking area could be an attractive meeting point for people to congregate at night resulting in noise and potential issues relating to crime and disorder. As such, the conditions are deemed to be both reasonable and necessary to safeguard the interests of nearby residential occupiers and the general public.

The appellant asserts that the NDHA is proposed for demolition, but this has not been confirmed by the Council. In any event, I am required to assess the effects of the proposal as presented during my visit based on its existing context.

The appellant has identified that the daily removal and reinstatement of tables and chairs on the deck would create a significant business impact that may nullify the financial benefits of the decking. However, there is no specific evidence before me to demonstrate that this would be a substantial financial burden rendering the development unviable and as such I have afforded this limited weight in my consideration of the merits of the scheme. Appeal 6002444

For the above reasons, the appeal is dismissed.