Alterations and extensions to provide first floor bedroom, en-suite and balcony

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 2 April 2019 by John D Allan BA(Hons) BTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 25 April 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/P1235/D/19/3220651 106 Oakbury Drive, Weymouth, DT3 6JH • 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 J Kendall against the decision of Weymouth and Portland Borough Council. • The application Ref WP/18/00596/FUL, dated 29 July 2018, was refused by notice dated 13 November 2018. • The development proposed is described as alterations and extensions to provide first floor bedroom, en-suite and balcony. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues are the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area and upon protected species. Reasons Character and Appearance 3. The appeal property is a modest sized, detached bungalow set on the lower slopes of a wider residential estate that faces south towards the Lodmoor Nature Reserve and coastline beyond. It sits amongst a distinctive and close- knit group of six similar styled properties at Nos 100 – 110 (even) that are built on a staggered building line to the inside of a shallow bend to Oakbury Drive. Despite some minor changes to the appearance of some, there is a strong visual bond between these dwellings derived from the consistency of their materials, forms and proportions. 4. The appeal proposal would add a first floor across part of the building’s width creating wide gabled features to the front and rear. The appearance of the dwelling would be entirely remodelled as a result of the proposal. Its modest and low-profiled form would be lost with the addition of a dominant roof extension. This would give the dwelling a noticeable vertical emphasis in part, Appeal Decision APP/P1235/D/19/3220651 2 exaggerated further to the front elevation by the amount of under-build that already exists owing to the topography of the land. 5. In isolation, the alternative form of the building would be seen as reasonably proportioned and well composed, as is the case at No 98, where an original bungalow has been changed into a two-storey dwelling. But No 98 sits in more noticeable isolation, removed from any immediate association with neighbouring buildings by virtue of distance, form and layout. In contrast, the change proposed to No 106 would significantly affect the uniform scale and appearance of the group to which it belongs. It would appear as an obvious and incongruous change that would be unsympathetic to the local identity and distinctiveness of its immediate setting. It would therefore conflict with Policies ENV10 and ENV12 of the West Dorset and Weymouth & Portland Local Plan 2015 (the Local Plan) by failing to harmonise with the context of its surroundings. There would also be conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) as it relates to the quality of design and respect for local character. Protected Species 6. The Council has suggested that, because the site is located adjacent to a nature reserve, the proposal may have an impact upon protected species. However, there is no evidence before me to demonstrate what conservation interests could potentially be harmed by the proposal. I am therefore unable to conclude one way or another against Policy ENV2 of the Local Plan which deals with the protection of wildlife and habitats, or with the Framework as it relates to the same matter. 7. The presence of a protected species is an important material consideration. Had I not found harm in relation to the first main issue I would have sought further clarification from the parties on this matter but given my findings this has not been necessary. Other Matters 8. I have noted some support for the proposal, and I appreciate that some other properties locally have been significantly modified. However, I have considered the appeal proposal based upon the merits of the individual case, including having regard to the specific context of the appeal site. A suggestion that the properties within this group will become holiday lets if alterations of the kind proposed are not permitted is not supported by any substantive evidence. Neither am I persuaded that the nature of the work proposed is the only means of modernising these properties. Conclusions 9. Although I have not been able to conclude on the second main issue, for the reasons given I find that the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. Accordingly, and having regard to all other matters raise, the appeal is dismissed. John D Allan INSPECTOR