Demolition of existing structures. Erect single storey rear extension and two storey side extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 20 April 2021 by C J Ford BA (Hons) BTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 29 April 2021 Appeal Ref: APP/V1260/D/21/3269696 69 Coombe Avenue, Bournemouth BH10 5AB • 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 Mrs Alexandra Mack against the decision of Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council. • The application Ref 7-2020-27922, dated 28 October 2020, was refused by notice dated 11 February 2021. • The development proposed is demolition of existing structures. Erect single storey rear extension and two storey side extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property and the wider area. Reasons 3. The appeal site accommodates a modest sized two-storey detached house with a hipped roof. As the house is positioned towards one side of the fairly wide plot, there is a large gap between its southern flank and the northern flank of the neighbouring dwelling. 4. Despite Coombe Avenue containing a wide variety of dwelling types, in certain parts of the street there are distinctive groups of properties with common characteristics. 65 and 67 Coombe Avenue are similar to the appeal property in terms of the plot width, the dwelling type and its positioning. Together, Nos 65, 67 and 69 form a small group whereby the large gaps between them, primarily that above the ground floor level, create an important sense of spaciousness within the street. 5. The proposed two-storey side extension would significantly reduce the width of the gap on the site and in doing so harmfully erode the existing important sense of spaciousness. While a proposed two-storey side extension has been permitted at No 65, that scheme would retain a much wider gap than the proposal, thereby maintaining the sense of spaciousness. The ridge height of the extension in relation to that of the host dwelling would also be more subservient compared to the proposal. 6. It is acknowledged that 72 and 74 Coombe Avenue have wide side extensions which comprise additional dwellings identified as 72A and 74A Coombe Avenue. However, those developments have significantly reduced the gaps between Nos Appeal Decision APP/V1260/D/21/3269696 2 70, 72 and 74 and reinforce the conclusion above that a similarly wide extension at the appeal property would harmfully erode the existing sense of spaciousness within the relevant part of the street. 7. The proposed deep, single-storey rear extension would span the full width of the extended dwelling. Notwithstanding the recessed rear sliding doors, due to its expansive size and flat roof form, it would be an unduly dominant and unsympathetic addition to the modest scale and hipped roof character of the existing dwelling. Although 52 and 61 Coombe Avenue have deep single-storey rear extensions, both are substantially narrower than the appeal scheme and it is understood the largest at No 52 was granted prior approval, such that it was not considered against extant planning policy, as is applicable in this case. 8. The appellant has drawn attention to many other developments within Coombe Avenue and notes that similar are found within the surrounding streets. However, those developments which are considered to be most relevant to the appeal scheme have been discussed above and the appeal proposal has been duly considered on its own merits and in light of its particular circumstances. None of the examples referred to weigh in favour of the appeal proposal. 9. Accordingly, it is concluded the proposed development would have an unacceptably harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host property and the wider area. It would conflict with Policy CS41 of the 2012 Bournemouth Local Plan Core Strategy which seeks to ensure that development through its scale, layout, siting, character and appearance is designed to respect the site and its surroundings and contribute positively to the appearance of the public realm. The development would similarly conflict with the design objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework. 10. The proposal would meet the specification in the Council’s 2008 ‘Residential extensions, a design guide for householders’ Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), in that side extensions should be set at least 1m off the side boundary of the property. However, it goes on to emphasise that the character of the street may require that a greater distance is left to the boundary and this can be particularly important if a two-storey extension is proposed. As that consideration is applicable in this case, the development would also conflict with the SPD. Other Matters 11. The private benefits the appellant would derive from the proposed development are acknowledged, particularly the additional living space and garage provision. However, these do not outweigh the identified harm. Conclusion 12. The proposal would conflict with the development plan taken as a whole and there are no other considerations that would outweigh this conflict. 13. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is dismissed. C J Ford INSPECTOR