Appeal 6003966

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for single storey rear extension, first floor side extension over rebuilt garage and play room at [site address] , Bournemouth [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/25/04055/HOU, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following

The local planning authority (LPA) states that the proposed flat roofed rear single storey extension would not have a visual impact on the character or appearance of the area and would not cause harm. I have no reason to disagree with this

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development upon the character and appearance of the area.

No.16 is a two-storey detached dwelling with integral garage in an established residential street. The tree-lined [address] is characterised by narrow gaps between sizeable houses, predominantly finished in brick and painted render, and some with first-floor rooms above garages.

I have been referred to Policy CS41 ([name]) of the Bournemouth Local Plan: [name] (2012) (‘the LP’). The Policy states, amongst other things, that development should, through its scale, density, layout, siting, character and appearance be designed to respect the site and its surroundings.

The LPA states that the proposed development to the first floor above a rebuilt garage and playroom would result in the closure of an existing gap with the neighbouring property (No.[address]) to create a cramped effect causing harm to the character and appearance of the area.

In this context, there is currently a narrow gap, which would appear less than 1 metre wide, between the two existing single-storey integral garages, which widens notably at first-floor level towards the dwellings’ side gables. Although the proposed physical gap between the front-facing rebuilt garage and neighbouring property would be narrower at ground floor level, the proposed development would still complement and respect the surrounding character on [address].

At first-floor level, the proposed development would not appear visually obtrusive or incongruous within the street scene. The existing gap above the neighbouring garage would continue to provide a clear visual break between the two properties, including when viewed obliquely from along [address]. As a result, the proposed development would not give rise to a cramped appearance or cause harm to the character of the surrounding area.

The proposed use of matching materials would assist in integrating the subordinate sized gable extension to the existing roof form ensuring that it would not present as an unduly prominent or visually dominant feature within the site or wider street scene.

In conclusion, the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area is acceptable. There is no conflict with either Policy CS41 of the LP, which among other things, seeks that the design of a proposed development respects the site and its surroundings, and the design principles of the National Planning Policy Framework. I acknowledge the guidance contained within the Supplementary Planning Guidance for [name]. However, as I have found that the proposal as a whole accords with the LP in that it would respect the prevailing character of the area, I afford its guidelines only limited weight in this instance.

I have considered the proposed conditions in accordance with the tests set out in paragraph 57 of the Framework.

The standard conditions setting out the time limit for implementation and the approved plans are both necessary to define the permission and provide certainty.

A condition ensuring the detailed materials to be used is necessary to ensure the proposal would respect and reflect the existing dwelling and character and appearance of the surrounding area.

For the reasons set out above, the proposal would not conflict with the development plan when read as a whole, and the Framework. Material considerations do not indicate that a decision should be taken other than in accordance with the development plan. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be allowed.