Single storey front extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 13 July 2021 by C J Ford BA (Hons) BTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 28 July 2021 Appeal Ref: APP/V1260/D/21/3274140 13 Belle Vue Close, Bournemouth BH6 3QW • 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 Phillip Weigh against the decision of Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council. • The application Ref 7-2020-27955, dated 24 November 2020, was refused by notice dated 16 February 2021. • The development proposed is single storey front extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matter 2. Since the planning application was determined, the 2021 version of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) has been published. The newly published Framework has been taken into account in the decision. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 4. Belle Vue Close is a residential street which comprises of detached bungalows and symmetrical pairs of bungalows that are connected by their adjoining garages. The north side of the street only accommodates two pairs of bungalows which are numbered 9/11 and 13/15. As a direct response to a turning head located in front of them, the building line of the latter pair is set further back in the street. This results in the outer parts of the front garden areas to Nos 13/15 being considerably deeper than at No 11. As a consequence of this layout, there is a strong sense of spaciousness around the turning head which makes an important positive contribution to the character of the street. 5. All four dwellings have a hipped roof with a lower outer wing formed by a gable ended front projection of a modest depth. The distinctive design of the houses and the symmetry between each pair similarly makes a positive contribution to the character of the locality, notwithstanding No 15 having a shallow extension alongside its front wing. 6. In the proposed scheme, the wing at No 13 would be greatly extended to broadly align with the front of the neighbouring wing at No 11. The adjacent area beyond the recessed front doorway would also be extended to a position a Appeal Decision APP/V1260/D/21/3274140 2 little beyond the existing end of the wing. In doing so, the important sense of spaciousness around the turning head would be harmfully eroded. Furthermore, the very deep front wing would appear incongruous amongst the four properties, undermining their distinctive design, while the bulk and depth of the extension would have a significant adverse impact on the balance and symmetry of Nos 13/15 as a pair. 7. In light of the above, the proposed development would have an unacceptably harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. As such, it would conflict with Policy CS41 of the 2012 adopted Bournemouth Local Plan: Core Strategy. This policy seeks to ensure the siting and scale of a development respects the site and its surroundings, and that it enhances the character and local distinctiveness of an area. It would also conflict with the Framework which, amongst other things, promotes development that is sympathetic to local character and maintains a strong sense of place. Moreover, it would conflict with the Council’s 2008 supplementary planning document `Residential extensions, a design guide for householders’ which, as a basic design principle, sets out that development proposals should maintain or enhance the character of the existing house and its setting. Other Matters 8. While the appellant has drawn attention to extensions at 4 Belle Vue Close, that property is not directly comparable because it is a detached bungalow which occupies a corner plot position. Additionally, as the full background to the extensions have not been provided, it is unclear whether they were assessed against current planning policy. The extensions at No 4 and elsewhere in the street do not justify the harm that would arise from the proposed development which has been considered on its own merits against current planning policy and guidance, and also with regard to its particular location and circumstances. 9. The private benefit to the appellant’s family of an additional bedroom and en- suite are acknowledged but this does not outweigh the harm that would result to the streetscene. Conclusion 10. The proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area, and would conflict with the development plan as a whole. There are no material considerations, nor relevant advice within the newly published Framework, which would indicate that the decision should be made otherwise than in accordance with the development plan. The appeal is therefore dismissed. C J Ford INSPECTOR