Appeal 6003411

The appeal is dismissed insofar as it relates to removal of the existing hipped roof and the addition of two floors at roof level, together with elevational alterations. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted insofar as it relates to the replacement of existing single garage with proposed double garage with green roof at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/25/03704/HOU, and subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

The main issues are: (a) the effects of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area, and (b) the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers at No [address] with particular regard to privacy and outlook.

The host dwelling is a detached dormer bungalow built on a stepped site, set back but elevated in relation to [address]. It is of no particular architectural interest but has a gable projection at ground floor level and a hipped roof with small central dormer window. The existing single garage to serve the dwelling is situated at a roadside position forward of the front garden.

The surrounding area largely comprises 20th century detached housing of relatively mixed character. To the east of the appeal dwelling, a number of dwellings are dormer bungalows which retain a horizontal emphasis and have low, hipped roof forms with dormer windows. Further to the east, there are a collection of two storey dwellings with a number of similar house types and repeated contemporary glazed features. To the west of the dwelling, the short streetscene is made up of a more eclectic mix of house types that contain accommodation over at least three storeys, most with the upper floor accommodation in the roof as evidenced by dormer windows. In addition, there are a number of blocks of flats on [address] which present their rear elevations into this streetscene from an elevated position and which have about three levels of accommodation looking over and visible from [address]. The rear elevation of these flat blocks also adds to the eclecticism of this part of the streetscene.

The additional accommodation would be above the footprint of the existing dwelling and would result in a dwelling over three levels, under flat roofs. The uppermost storey would cover just over half of the area of the floors below and would sit to the western side of the dwelling, providing a balcony overlooking [address].

The uppermost storey would be particularly bulky and the set back from the principal elevation would fail to sufficiently break up the overall mass of the dwelling. When combined with the altered storeys below, the dwelling would have an ungainly, boxy appearance.

Green Park is an area of open space situated on higher ground to the rear of the appeal dwelling. It is a gently sloping area of grassed open space with informal seating which offers some clear and some partial long views over the roofscape of [address] towards the townscape and coast beyond. These views are particularly pleasant.

Due to the level changes and undulations on Green Park, in addition to the varied dwellings styles and intervening boundary treatments, some of the clearest, uninterrupted views are over the appeal dwelling in the gap created by its existing low, hipped roof form. Some intervening boundaries have been allowed to grow up to obscure views. Nos 9 and 11 are too high to allow meaningful views over their roofs, so viewers are required to find the gaps around them from where clearer views are available.

The submitted render showing the rear view highlights how the altered dwelling would protrude above its existing height and the way in which the uppermost storey would materially undermine the availability and enjoyment of public views from Green Park. Whilst the overall height of the altered dwelling would be no higher than that at Nos 9 and 11, their effects on Green Park are unfortunate and offer little justification for a similar intervention on the appeal site. The harms would not be sufficiently addressed through the use of dark clad walling and green flat roof either.

I note that the proposal differs from a previously refused scheme. However, the changes made have not meaningfully addressed the bulk and mass at the uppermost level which would cause the greatest harm. Similarly, whilst some form of upwards extensions may be achievable under the general permitted development rights regime1, it has not been demonstrated that any fallback would be so similar such as to be determinative of the appeal scheme.

For the above reasons, the proposals would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area, contrary to, in particular Policy PP27(a) of the Poole Local Plan (November 2018) (Local Plan). This policy seeks to ensure development reflects or enhances local patterns of development and neighbouring buildings. 1 Under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development Rights) Order 2015 (as amended)

In contrast to the above, the more appropriately scaled and designed replacement timber-clad garage with green roof would not cause harm to the streetscene or wider character and appearance of the area. As such, this aspect of the proposal complies with the aforesaid policy.

The proposal would add height and bulk to the appeal dwelling above its existing external walls. Whilst there are some windows in the side elevation and roof plane of No [address] proximity facing towards the site, there would be no windows in the appeal proposal which would have a harmful direct relationship with them. A condition could be used to secure a privacy screen on the side of the balcony to avoid harmful overlooking.

The outlook from windows and openings facing towards the site would be affected to an extent, but given the existing relationship and that that the primary outlook of No 15 is to the front and rear, its loss of outlook and minor degree of loss of light would not give rise to a material worsening of the living conditions of the affected occupiers.

For the foregoing reasons, the proposal would not conflict with Policy PP27 (c) of the Local Plan which seeks to ensure that development is compatible with surrounding uses and would not result in a harmful impact upon amenity for both local residents and future occupiers considering aspects such as levels of sunlight and daylight, privacy, noise and vibration.

In addition to a statutory time limit for commencement, a condition is needed to specify the approved plans in relation to the approved part of the scheme. A condition is also needed to specify the ancillary use of the garage to the host dwelling which it would serve.

For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed insofar as it relates to the replacement garage. Insofar as the appeal relates to the upward extensions, I conclude that for the reasons given above, the proposal would conflict with the development plan, when read as a whole. Material considerations, including the Framework, do not indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan.

I therefore conclude that this element of the appeal should be dismissed.

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 drawing nos: • Site Location Plan • [name] • [name]

The replacement garage hereby approved shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details and shall be used solely for purposes incidental to the existing dwelling known as ’ [site address] ’. --ENDS--