To form a new first floor loft conversion & alter existing front porch

Appeal Decision Site Visit made on 15 February 2021 by M Bale BA (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 24 February 2021 Appeal Ref: APP/V1260/D/20/3262003 61 Lancaster Drive, Broadstone, Poole BH18 9EH • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr B Pereira against the decision of Bournemouth Christchurch and Poole Council. • The application Ref APP/20/00724/F, dated 8 July 2020, was refused by notice dated 17 September 2020. • The development proposed is to form a new first floor loft conversion & alter existing front porch. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted to form a new first floor loft conversion & alter existing front porch at 61 Lancaster Drive, Broadstone, Poole BH18 9EH in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref APP/20/00724/F, dated 8 July 2020, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Site Location Plan; Block/Site Plan; PG001FP; PG002FP; PG003FP; PG004FP. 3) The materials and finishes to be used in the development hereby permitted shall be those specified on the application form. Application for costs 2. An application for costs was made by Mr B Pereira against Bournemouth Christchurch and Poole Council. This application is the subject of a separate Decision. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 4. The area has a suburban character. Dwellings are set back from the relatively wide highway, usually behind open front gardens giving a spacious appearance. There are many single storey dwellings, some of which have a similar design to No.61 including the immediately adjoining Nos. 59, 63 and 65. However, there are also alternatively designed properties and a significant number with living accommodation in the roof space. Thus, while there is some similarity in a number of the dwellings, outright uniformity in scale and design is not a defining characteristic of the area. Appeal Decision APP/V1260/D/20/3262003 2 5. The proposal to place a gable across the full width of No.61 would add significant height and mass to the dwelling. It would have a bulkier appearance than its immediate neighbours, which would disrupt the gradual increase in ridge height as the dwellings climb up the hill. However, variations in ridge height occur elsewhere as a consequence of the varying provision of in-roof accommodation and the proposal would be similarly designed to No.57 which also has a gable spanning the full width of the dwelling. 6. Therefore, the resultant design would not be out of character with the area. It would be no more dominant or incongruous than those other dwellings with significant roof space accommodation. The overall character and spacious appearance of the area would be preserved. 7. There would be new first floor windows in the rear elevation facing towards the rear garden of No.27 Sutherland Avenue. The Council identified that there would be no harm to the living conditions of adjoining residents. Given the angles between proposed and neighbouring windows and the presence of a garage along the boundary with No.27, I have no reason to disagree with the Council’s conclusions on this matter. 8. A plans condition is required in the interests of certainty and, in the interests of the character and appearance of the area, materials should be as specified in the application. Subject to these conditions, there would, therefore, be no conflict with those aims of Policies PP27 of the Poole Local Plan 2018 and BP8 of the Broadstone Neighbourhood Plan 2018 that seek to ensure that development reflects and complements local patterns of development, maintaining details that reflect local character. 9. With regard to the above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. M Bale INSPECTOR