Increase in roof height to provide bathroom and two additional bedrooms

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 16 January 2019 by G Roberts BA (Hons) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 16th May 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/Q1255/D/18/3215980 37 Thorncombe Close, Poole, BH17 9EF • 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 & Mrs Jeremy Isaacs against the decision of Borough of Poole Council. • The application Ref APP/18/01263/F, dated 21 September 2018, was refused by notice dated 9 November 2018. • The development proposed is increase in roof height to provide bathroom and two additional bedrooms. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matter 2. Since the Council issued its decision, it has adopted the Poole Local Plan 2018 (PLP). Policy PP27 of this plan superseded Policy PCS23 of the Poole Core Strategy 2009, which was referred to in the reason for refusal. I have, therefore, based my decision upon the most up to date planning policy. The appellant had an opportunity to address this change in policy through their appeal submissions. Main Issue 3. The main issue in this appeal is whether the proposed development would affect the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 4. The appeal site is located within a terrace of four two-storey properties, all of which have a consistent ridge line, shallow pitched roofs, with gables at either end of the terrace. The terrace forms part of a well-planned estate, with a similar uniform design of two-storey terraced and semi-detached properties throughout. 5. The appeal proposal would involve an increase in the height of the existing ridge to create a new second floor, with its resulting eaves just below the existing ridge of the properties either side. 6. In comparison to the uniform design and appearance of both the terrace it forms part of and the wider estate, the proposed increase in height would result in a house that would appear incongruous and dominant. It would disrupt the rhythm of the terrace and result in a development that was out of Appeal Decision APP/Q1255/D/18/3215980 2 keeping with the established character and appearance of the wider estate, particularly when viewed from Culliford Crescent. As such it would introduce a strident feature that would significantly depart from the prevailing built form of the area. The proposal would also result in an awkward relationship with the terrace it forms part of and would be highly visible within the estate. 7. Whilst the appellant argues that the proposal would add variety to a poor design, for the reasons given above, I do not share those views. The appeal site forms part of a well-kept estate, that has a pleasing and harmonious appearance, which the appeal proposal would be completely at odds with. 8. The appellant also states that the proposed corbel detail, materials and roof pitch would match, and that this would maintain the appearance of the terrace and that the addition of the chimney would also be an attractive feature. Whilst this detailing is a positive feature of the design, it does not affect my overall conclusion that the proposed development would not sit comfortably within the host terrace. In addition, whilst I note that there have been no objections from neighbours, this does not alter my findings in this respect. 9. The appellant has provided, in their appeal submission and Design & Planning Statement, examples of other stepped two/three storey developments. However, none of these examples are on this particular estate and therefore my findings are not inconsistent with any previous decisions on those sites given the material differences. Even so, the examples appear to relate to schemes where two and three storey buildings were included as part of the original design concept for those developments. 10. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal proposal would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the host terrace and the surrounding area contrary to Policy PP27 of the PLP. This policy seeks, amongst other requirements, a good standard of design within all new developments, which reflects or enhances the local pattern of development in terms of height, scale, bulk and visual impact. Conclusions 11. For the reasons given above and having taken all other matters into account, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. G Roberts INSPECTOR