Appeal 6004593

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a second storey extension, raising roof height with the addition of two dormers to the front and rear elevations, in accordance with the terms of the application Ref: P/25/04152/HOU, subject to the following conditions: 1.The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. 2.The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 0967 P001 Rev. 01 Site and Location Plan dated 06/10/2025; 0967 P003 Rev. 01 [name] dated 06/10/2025; 0967 P005 Rev. 02 [name] dated 09/10/2025; and 0967 P007 Rev. 01 [name] dated 06/10/2025. 3.The materials used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be as set out on the application form and as shown on the approved plans.

I have used the description of the appeal proposal, with some minor revisions, from the decision notice and the appeal form, as I consider this better reflects the proposed development before me.

The main issue is the effects of the appeal proposal on the character and appearance of the area.

No. 8 is located to the northern side of [address], a C20 cul-de-sac that contains a broad range of building types and styles which vary distinctly from plot to plot in terms of form, massing and outward appearance, as a result there is no prevailing characteristic.

No. 8 at present has a rather uneven aesthetic when viewed from [address], consisting of a domineering part hipped one and a half storey gable end to its north-eastern side, that projects forward of what is otherwise perceived as a single storey building form.

The irregularity of No.8’s appearance is exacerbated by the presence of the two storey form of No. 6 to the south west, which is positioned close to the boundary with No.8, and has a relatively large depth on this boundary, which is open to view from [address].

It seems to me that in this context, the raising of the profile of the single storey component of No.8, the provision of the dormer windows and the other alterations proposed would not appear out of place. In reaching these conclusions, I do acknowledge that the flat roofed dormer proposed to the roof slope on the southern elevation would run across almost the entirety of the roof profile to be raised. However, the dormer would be seen as set back behind the larger and forward sited building massing to either side, and with an angular section of the roof profile below and against it. The materials proposed would also reflect what already exists on the gable elevation of No. 8. Therefore, I am satisfied that the proposal would appear acceptable along the street scene.

Turning to the proposed alterations to the rear, these are predominantly out of public view, and whilst the dormer proposed is larger in building mass to that proposed to the front south facing elevation, I remain satisfied that the resultant effects of the proposal are appropriate in their context.

Overall, I find that the appeal proposal would accord with Policy HE2 of the Christchurch and East Dorset Local Plan, Part 1 [name] 2014, Policy H12 of the Borough of Christchurch Local Plan 2001 and Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (the Framework) which amongst other matters seek to ensure that development is compatible with or improves its surroundings through its scale, density, layout, siting, character and appearance.

The Council has suggested a number of conditions which I have considered against the advice in the Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance (the PPG).

The standard time limit is required together with a condition listing the plans in the interests of certainty. I have also included a condition requiring that the materials to be used are as described on the application form and as shown on the approved plans.

The Council have suggested a condition removing permitted development rights with regard to further windows, dormer windows, doors or other external openings. The PPG1 explains that conditions restricting the future use of permitted development rights may not pass the test of reasonableness or necessity. It is unclear to me why in allowing the appeal proposal, such a condition would be necessary in this case. I have therefore not imposed this suggested condition.

A condition is also suggested by the Council requiring that works should cease if bats are found during the construction works. However, I have no detailed information before me to understand why such a condition is requested in this case. There is no information before me to suggest that a protected species survey was requested through the application stage, and the proposal has not been refused on the basis of a lack of information or surveys on this matter. I have therefore not imposed this suggested condition.

For all of the above reasons, having regard to all matters raised, and subject to the specified conditions, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.