Loft conversion to provide bathroom and 2 bedrooms, provide dormer window to front elevation and side elevations create gable end at rear of property replacing hip roof

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 29 April 2019 by Tobias Gethin BA (Hons), MSc, MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 16 May 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/G1250/D/19/3221416 4 Persley Road, Northbourne, Bournemouth, Dorset BH10 6DX • 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 Edwin Davies against the decision of Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council. • The application Ref 7-2018-27189, dated 24 September 2018, was refused by notice dated 9 November 2018. • The development proposed is described as a loft conversion to provide bathroom and 2 bedrooms, provide dormer window to front elevation and side elevations create gable end at rear of property replacing hip roof. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matters 2. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was revised in February 2019. However, the main parties submitted appeal documents after this, while the Framework’s policies that are most relevant to this appeal have also not materially changed. Consequently, no parties will have been prejudiced by my having regard to the latest version in reaching my decision. 3. On 1 April 2019, Bournemouth Borough Council merged with Christchurch Borough Council and Borough of Poole Council to become a Unitary Authority, Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole (BCP) Council. Until such time as they are revoked or replaced, the development plans for the merged local planning authorities remain in place for the area which they relate to within the BCP authority. It is therefore necessary to determine this appeal with reference to policies set out in the plans produced by the now dissolved borough council. Main Issues 4. The main issues are the effect of the development on: • the character and appearance of the surrounding area; and • the living conditions of adjoining occupiers, with particular regard to overlooking of the rear gardens of Nos 49 and 51 Brierley Road. Reasons Character and appearance Appeal Decision APP/G1250/D/19/3221416 2 5. A few properties in the surrounding area contain, amongst other aspects, dormer windows, gable roofs and roof lights. In the vicinity of the appeal site, this includes properties such as Nos 59 Brierley Road and 10 and 18 Persley Road. However, the majority of properties in the surrounding area are single- storey bungalows with hipped roofs. This creates a uniform character in the area surrounding the site, including the sections of Persley and Brierley Roads from where the site is visible. With a similar modest size and appearance to the majority of surrounding built form, including in particular Nos 2 and 6 Persley Road on either side and 51 Brierley Road to the rear, the site reflects its neighbours and contributes to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The extended and altered properties stand out in contrast to this and appear as anomalies in the generally consistent streetscene. 6. The development would, amongst other aspects, involve raising the ridgeline of the property, a rear gable roof extension and the erection of front- and side- facing dormer windows. This would unbalance and dominate the building, significantly increase its size and materially alter its simple character and appearance. The positioning and size of the dormer windows would also not reflect the coherent proportions and design of the building and surrounding properties. Consequently, the development would appear as an incongruous feature that would fail to respect its surroundings. Situated close to the junction with Persley Road and Brierley Road, all sides of the property are visible to some extent from the highway. The rear gable roof extension and the dormers would therefore all be visible from the public realm. 7. I acknowledge that neighbouring properties along Persley Road are set higher than the site due to the area’s topography and ridge heights may not necessarily be the same along the road. However, although modest, the additional height would be noticeable and would exacerbate the dominating effect of the dormers and gable roof extension. I note that the Council asserts that loft conversions at other nearby properties have also not involved an increase in ridge height. Consequently, the development would not only appear larger than adjoining un-extended properties but would have a greater height than the few nearby buildings with dormer and/or gable roof extensions. 8. For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area. I therefore find that the proposal fails to accord with Policy CS41 of the Bournemouth Local Plan: Core Strategy (CS). Amongst other aspects, this requires the scale, siting and appearance of development to respect and contribute to the surrounding area. The proposal would also be inconsistent with the advice relating to roof alterations in the Council’s guidance document, ‘Residential Extensions: A Design Guide for Householders (2008)’ and the Framework’s provisions relating to good design. Living conditions 9. The proposed first-floor rear window would look towards the rear gardens and sitting out areas of Nos 49 and 51 Brierley Road. However, the existing rear windows have a view towards the rear gardens of those properties and the site is also situated on higher ground. Given the position of other nearby properties, it is likely that the rear gardens of Nos 49 and 51 are also visible to some extent from other properties. 10. The introduction of a first-floor rear window at the site would therefore not involve a significant increase in overlooking compared to the existing situation. Appeal Decision APP/G1250/D/19/3221416 3 Existing boundary treatment, including a fence and some shrubs at the rear of the appeal site, would also provide some screening. Furthermore, this is a residential area with dwellings located in relatively close proximity. As such, a certain degree of mutual overlooking would not be unusual. 11. For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposal would not harm the living conditions of adjoining occupiers, with particular regard to overlooking of the rear gardens of Nos 49 and 51 Brierley Road. I therefore find that the proposal would accord with Policy CS41 of the CS, which amongst other aspects seeks development that is not detrimental to the amenity of neighbouring residents. The proposal would also be consistent with the advice in the Council’s Design Guide relating to respecting neighbours and the Framework’s provisions relating to the amenity for existing users. Other Matters 12. My attention has been drawn to various examples of dormer windows and gable roofs in the surrounding area. However, I do not have the full details as to how these roof extensions, including some side and front dormers which may not comply with the Council’s Design Guide, came about. Located some distance away and on different roads, some of the examples are situated in a wider area, beyond the appeal site’s immediate context. Consequently, they do not reflect the particular circumstances of the site and its surroundings, and are not directly comparable to the development. The examples of properties with roof extensions closer to the site are experienced as contrasting features which do not reflect the prevailing character and appearance of the surrounding area, and do not indicate that harmful development should be permitted. In any event, each case must be considered on its own merits. 13. It has been put to me that the host building could be extended under permitted development rights, and that the gable roof extension and side dormers would fall within permitted development allowances if they were implemented within the existing roof height. It is open to the appellant to apply to the Council for a certificate of lawfulness to determine whether this is indeed the case. However, this represents only part of the scheme before me, which I must determine on its own terms. Regardless of the status of any possible permitted development, I have found that the appeal proposal conflicts with the development plan, and there is little justification for allowing such development. Conclusion 14. For the above reasons, the appeal is dismissed. Tobias Gethin INSPECTOR