Appeal 6007367

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs has been made by the appellant against Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council. This application is the subject of a separate

I have used the description of the appeal proposal from the decision notice and the appeal form as I consider this better reflects the proposed development before me. However, I have removed reference to the receipt of revised plans as this does not constitute a form of development.

A third party at No.[address] requested that I undertook an accompanied site visit through the appeal paperwork. Whilst the appellant stated on their appeal form that they did not consider it was necessary for me to access the appeal site, both the appellant and the third party were notified that I would undertake accompanied site visits on 12 June 2026. However, the appellant did not answer the door when I arrived at No. 5. I therefore proceeded with my visit to No. 5a who were in attendance. I then subsequently called at No.5 again, but there was again no answer. Having reviewed through all the information I have before me, and having been able to view the appeal property from various positions along the road, the shared access with No.5a and from the rear within 5a’s garden and parking area, I am satisfied that I am able to determine the appeal on the basis of the evidence I have before me and what I observed during my site visit.

The main issues are the effects of the appeal proposal on: • the character and appearance of the area; and • the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers.

The appeal property (No. 5) is positioned part way along [address] and is a C20 chalet style bungalow with a gabled elevation fronting towards the road. No.5 is connected to a similarly styled property to its rear (No.5a). To either side of No.5 are contemporary 3 storey dwellings, and the prevailing characteristics of the street scene is predominately reflective of this style.

In broad terms the proposal seeks to remodel No.5 to provide for a 3-storey dwelling of a similar contemporary style to the neighbouring properties.

From all that I observed during my site visit, it seems to me that No.5 appears as a somewhat odd feature in the context of the style, scale and massing of the built form to either side when perceived from [address].

By remodelling No.5 as proposed it would have greater consistency with the characteristics of its surroundings, it would reflect a 3-storey contemporary style dwellinghouse, with typical design features, thus it would assimilate well into this context.

In reaching these conclusions, I am minded that No.5a to the rear of No.5 would appear at odds with the scale, style and massing of the built form around it, but from everything I saw during my site visit I find that this is already the case, and whilst the proposal would potentially lead to a further exacerbation of this position, the effects of such would not, bearing in mind the wider context and the limited opportunities to visually perceive No. 5a, represent a sufficient reason to resist the proposal in character and appearance terms.

Thus, the proposal would have an acceptable effect upon the character and appearance of the area and it would accord with the requirements of Policy PP27(1)(a) of the Poole Local Plan (2018) (the PLP) and Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (the Framework), which amongst other matters, seek well-designed development that reflects or enhances local patterns of development and neighbouring buildings in terms of: layout and siting; height, scale, bulk and massing; materials and detailing; and visual impact.

No.5 and No.5a are currently linked to each other by a single storey section of No. 5a that abuts the north-western elevation of No. 5. Otherwise, the main building form of the two properties are detached from each other, and they are positioned in a tandem layout, with the gabled ends to each property fronting to a north-westerly and south-easterly direction.

No.5a does not have any windows facing towards the gable of No.5. No.5 itself has some upper floor windows which as the plans indicate and as appeared from my site visit serve non-habitable rooms, such as a bathroom, staircase and a corridor. There is also a ground floor window that faces into an enclosed yard area.

From my visit, it was evident to me that the primary outlook from No.5a was to the northern and western sides, which is also the location for the main usable outdoor spaces for this property.

It seems to me that due to the lack of windows on No.5a facing towards the appeal site and the manner in which this property is laid out, the proposal would not result in specific concerns about loss of internal privacy or the outlook from internal space of No. 5a. Also, due to the positioning of No.5 and No.5a and the nature of the outlook and activity of No.5a, I am also satisfied that the proposal would not result in significant effects upon loss of daylight to No. 5a.

However, I do have concerns about the manner in which the appeal proposal would impact upon the enjoyment of the outdoor space of No. 5a. it was clear from my site visit that the section of outdoor space to the western side of No. 5a is used as an outdoor seating area, which is accessed directly from the larger habitable rooms of this property.

At present, No.5a is located within a relatively dense built-up environment and already has a hemmed in feeling from some sides. However, this space is relatively private and has a reasonable degree of outlook from its immediate environs to the north and to the south-east. It represents a pleasant area to sit out within and relax. This is in part due to the current pitched building mass of No.5 and its positioning, which is not overly prominent from the garden area and is in part set behind the building mass of No. 5a itself. Whilst the upper floor windows are partially visible from some areas of the garden, they are clearly not habitable rooms in the property, and the perception of any possible overlooking is limited.

However, the appeal proposal would introduce a taller and box shaped building form fronting towards the north-western boundary of the appeal site and within close proximity to No. 5a. To my mind, the positioning, size and scale of the proposal would result in a marked change from the current arrangement and would create for an oppressive and overbearing building form presenting to users of the section of garden to the western side of No. 5a, this would negatively impact upon the enjoyment of the outdoor environment that currently exists.

Further, a window is shown on the proposed plans that would serve an upper floor dining room, and whilst I appreciate there are existing windows on No. 5 fronting towards 5a and that this window is marked as opaque glazing on the proposed plans and a condition could be applied requiring restrictive openings, the positioning of a window in this location could nonetheless create a perception of activity in No. 5 and resultant uncomfortableness to users of the garden area of No. 5a. Similar matters could also arise with the terraced area fronting towards No. 5a at the second floor. Ultimately, for the above reasons, due to the nature of the proposal on its north- westerly elevation and the relationship this would have with No.5a’s outdoor space, the proposal would result in a detrimental effect upon the living conditions of No.5a.

Turning to the effects upon other neighbouring and nearby properties, I am satisfied that due to the current relationships and nature of the built form, there would be no resultant significant adverse effects upon the living conditions of these properties arising from the proposal.

For example, the properties to either side of No.5, 3a and Seahorses are of a 3 storey scale and have their primary outlook out towards the south/ south-east, there side elevations contain limited or secondary window openings, and their balcony areas would be located set back from the proposed terraces on No.5, thereby preventing opportunities for direct overlooking. Nonetheless, and notwithstanding the submitted plans a 1.8m obscure glazing to the side of the proposed terrace areas could be secured via a condition if this was considered necessary and I was minded to approve the proposals, and obscure glazing to a window on the side elevation at first floor level as shown on the plans could also be controlled via a condition. Overall, this would resolve any significant concerns over loss of privacy, overlooking and wider effects upon the living conditions to these properties. I am therefore satisfied that the proposal would not prejudice the living conditions of the properties to either side of the appeal site.

No. [address] is located to the west of No.3a. The owners of this property have raised concerns about the effects of the proposal upon their outdoor living space, which includes a section of space located to the southern side of their property. Whilst the points raised are noted, I am of the view that due to the separation distances involved between No.5 and No.[address], the implications from loss of light and overshadowing will not be to such a degree to justify a refusal, further concerns about the potential for overlooking could be managed through the matters I have outlined above with regard to obscure glazing to a window on the side elevation and privacy screens to the terrace areas.

Finally, turning to wider properties in the area, due to matters such as the degree of physical separation, intervening building form or the positioning involved, I am satisfied that the proposal would have an acceptable effect upon the living conditions of these properties.

For the reasons I have set out, I find that the proposal would unduly prejudice the living conditions of No. 5a. As a result, the proposal would be in conflict with Policy PP27(1)(c) and (d) of the PLP and Section 12 of the Framework, which amongst other matters, seek a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.

A number of other matters have been raised by the parties in this case. These include issues such as construction traffic, noise implications and traffic implications. However, whilst I have taken these into account in reaching my decision, I am satisfied the wider points raised could be effectively controlled by conditions if necessary, or do not raise demonstrated sufficient harm that would result in me finding against the appeal on these matters. As a result, none of the other matters raised alter or outweigh my conclusions.

For the reasons set out above, the appeal proposal would have a detrimental effect upon the living conditions of the occupiers of No. [address].

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.