Appeal 6006150

The appeal is dismissed.

I have used the description of the appeal proposal, with some minor variations, 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 appeal property (No.53) and the wider area.

[address] is a typical residential street that within the area in which No. 53 is located consists of predominately two storey dwellings of which No.53 is one such property. In the immediate surroundings to No.53, whilst there are some variations from plot to plot, there is an overall broad consistency of built form with angled roof pitches mostly of a hipped style. With that said, as pointed out by the appellant and as I noted during my site visit there are also some examples of gabled elevations fronting towards the road. From all that I observed these are mostly found in groupings of similar styles; these properties are mostly of a modest two storey form.

Turning to the proposal, the setback gabled addition on the street facing elevation would be openly viewed from [address]. The change and enlargement in roof form as proposed, the setting back of the gable in combination with the retained section of angular roof pitch below it, and the overall visual perception of the additional floor through the front facing window, would, to my mind, appear as an incongruous addition on the street scene, which would not appear consistent with the characteristics of the surrounding properties and would appear out of place unduly drawing the eye. This would also be the case for the side dormer window, which due to its size and elevated position would be possible to view when approaching along [address] from a westerly direction. These components of the proposal would therefore be harmful to the character and appearance of No.53 and the surrounding area.

A number of examples of other properties, including extensions and alterations have been presented to me by the appellant, some of which I observed during my site visit. [name] have taken account of these examples in my assessment, I do not know the full circumstances behind each of these cases, but nonetheless, other developments that are not sympathetic or in keeping are not a reason to support development that would similarly appear out of place. In any case, I am required to judge each proposal on its own individual planning merits.

I have also been referred to examples of side dormer windows at No.95 and No.111 which the appellant has suggested have been executed under permitted development rights, and such works could be undertaken to No.53, and this should be considered as a fallback option to the proposal before me.

I viewed both of these examples during my side visit, and to my mind they appeared as somewhat odd and conspicuous features along the street. These examples are also on a section of [address] to the opposite side of the [address] crossing and are not perceived in the same context as No.53.

For the permitted development rights fallback option to be afforded significant weight I must be satisfied that there is a realistic possibility of it being implemented in the event that this appeal is dismissed. However, I have not been provided with a degree of certainty that such works could be undertaken through permitted development rights, such as through the provision of a lawful development certificate. Without this, I can not give these arguments any significant weight in reaching my decision.

Even so, the proposed side dormer window forms part of the wider development that I am considering, which in my view, would negatively exacerbate the effects of what could potentially be possible through permitted development rights.

Turning to the wider elements of the proposal, such as the rear gable extension and the single storey extensions to the side and the rear, as these works are not overly prominent from the street scene or would appear as subservient additions, I am satisfied that these wider elements of the proposal would be acceptable in character and appearance terms.

However, for the reasons I have set out, I find that the appeal proposal as a whole would conflict with Policy CS41 of the Bournemouth Local Plan: [name] (2012) and Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024), which amongst other matters seek to ensure that development is of a high quality that respects the site and its surroundings through its scale, layout, siting, character and appearance.

The appeal proposal would have a detrimental effect on the character and appearance of No.53 and the wider area.

As a result of these negative effects, the proposal is in my view unacceptable, and contrary to the development plan, when read as a whole. There are no material considerations that would justify a decision contrary to the provisions of the development plan, in this case.

For all of the above reasons, having regard to all matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.