Loft extension over existing garage to create additional bedroom conversion of existing garage below to habitable space, including addition of two windows” Decision

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 27 October 2025 by C Cooper-Young MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 24 November 2025 Appeal Ref: 6000795 20 Hood Crescent, Bournemouth BH104DD • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Richard Elliot against the decision of Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council. • The application Ref is P/25/02050/HOU. • The development proposed is described as “loft extension over existing garage to create additional bedroom conversion of existing garage below to habitable space, including addition of two windows” Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a development described as “loft extension over existing garage to create additional bedroom conversion of existing garage below to habitable space, including addition of two windows” at 20 Hood Crescent, Bournemouth BH10 4DD in accordance with the terms of the application Ref P/25/02050/HOU, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans: 521/102 Proposed Block Plan, 521/110 Proposed Ground Floor, 521/111A Proposed First Floor, 521/112A Proposed Roof Plan, 52 /160A Proposed North Elevation, 521/161A Proposed East Elevation, 521/162A Proposed South Elevation, 521/163A Proposed West Elevation. 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area. Reasons 3. The appeal site is located within a residential neighbourhood comprising an eclectic mix of detached dwellings. These dwellings have varying front building lines, each set back from the highway with modest frontages. 4. No 20 Hood Crescent is a detached chalet bungalow and attached garage, with gardens to front, right hand side and rear. The front elevation of No 20 is comprised of a bay window either side of a front door with a mono-pitch canopy above. The roof has a clipped half hip gable with a central window. Appeal Decision 6000795 2 5. The Council’s Residential Extensions – A Design Guide for Householders (the Design Guide) was adopted in 2008. It provides guidance for side extensions at section 3.2. It articulates, amongst other things, that extensions should be at least 1 metre from the boundary, at least 1 metre back off the front of the building, and the ridge height of the extension should be set down from the ridge of the main property so the extension is subservient and does not dominate the main property. It goes on to outline potential negative impacts to neighbours, principally privacy, appearance and loss of sunlight or daylight. 6. My attention has been drawn to similar works at No 21, immediately opposite the appeal site. I am unaware of the particular planning history for that site, but I observed the ridge height of that extension and other roof extensions in the locality (No 6 and No 10). I found nothing about those alterations that stood out as incongruous or harmful to the street scene. Accordingly, I find that the proposal at No 20 to be in keeping with the surroundings. 7. Although the ridge height of the proposed roof to No 20 would not be subservient, this would not be so significant for it to appear out of keeping with dwellings in the immediate locality. The proposal would be set back from the front build line and the distances to the boundaries will be maintained. In this regard the proposal is in general conformity with the Design Guide. Consequently, I find nothing about the proposal to be at odds with the character and appearance of the host building or the area. 8. As such, I conclude that the proposed development would have an acceptable effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. Therefore, it would not conflict with policy CS41 of the Bournemouth Local Plan Core Strategy (adopted 2012) or the Residential Extensions Design Guide (2008). Conditions 9. The Council suggested a condition regarding obscuring or restricting the opening of the proposed window in the west (side) elevation, in the event that the appeal is successful. The Council’s officer delegated report highlighted that whilst the proposed window in the west elevation would not cause direct overlooking, the introduction of a window at this level would increase the perception of overlooking. The perception of harm is a material consideration. 10. During my site visit I observed that the neighbouring property (No 20A) has a glazed side extension and rear lean to conservatory, which together wrap around the elevations nearest to the proposed extension. The roof materials of these buildings are obscured and the uppermost windows have been intentionally blanked out to prevent mutual overlooking. These structures provide a further interruption into any perceived views into the private residential garden area of the neighbouring dwelling. In these circumstances I consider that the perceived overlooking arising from the proposed development would be limited. 11. In addition to the standard time limit condition and for the avoidance of doubt, I have imposed a condition requiring the proposal to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans. 12. In order to protect the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area I have imposed a condition which requires the materials to be Appeal Decision 6000795 3 used in the external surfaces of the proposal to match those of the existing dwelling. Conclusion 13. For the reasons given above, considering the development plan as a whole and relevant material considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. C Cooper-Young INSPECTOR