To add external wall insulation, alter roof form, add solar PV, add rear terrace, vary window and door positions, extend garage/storeroom, and internal layout changes

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 20 January 2026 by S Leonard BA (Hons) BTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 04 February 2026 Appeal Ref: 6003018 4 Fairfield Close, Christchurch BH23 1QZ • 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 Mr & Mrs Chad & Olivia Reid & Pinel against the decision of Bournemouth Christchurch and Poole Council. • The application Ref is P/25/02936/HOU. • The development proposed is to add external wall insulation, alter roof form, add solar PV, add rear terrace, vary window and door positions, extend garage/storeroom, and internal layout changes. 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 host property and the surrounding area; and • The effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of No.2 Fairfield Close, with particular regard to privacy. Reasons Character and appearance 3. The appeal site lies within an established residential area on the eastern edge of the built-up settlement of Christchurch. To the rear of the site is open countryside and a public footpath separates the site from the riverbank of the River Avon. 4. The site lies at the end of Fairfield Close, which is a small cul-de-sac providing access to the appeal property and 3 other detached dwellings. These properties are set at a lower ground level than the houses in Fairfield and are of a notably more recent design than that of the traditional Edwardian/Victorian dwellings which characterise that road. 5. North of the appeal site is a two-storey block of flats which is sited on higher ground than the appeal site and forms part of a later residential development of houses and flats which are accessed via Lights Close. This development has no direct access through Fairfield Close and the boundary separating it from the Close is well-screened, including mature landscaping. Appeal Decision 6003018 2 6. As such, the 4 houses within Fairfield Close comprise a distinct enclave within the surrounding residential townscape, having a notably different design and built form than the dwellings in both Fairfield and Lights Close. 7. The appeal property comprises a detached, part single-storey and part 2-storey dwelling with a roughly L-shaped footprint. It is made up of several distinct elements with differing roof heights and forms. The main 2-storey part has a steeply pitched asymmetrical roof. Moreover, steep roof pitches throughout the building give the property a distinctly angular appearance, with a small flat-roofed single storey element appearing as clearly subservient. 8. The house has a variety of fenestration opening sizes, shapes, heights and orientations. However, it is also characterised by a strong uniformity of building materials comprising similarly coloured bricks and tile hanging for the walls and tiles for the roofs. Large uninterrupted expanses of these materials are a feature of the building. 9. Although the properties in Fairfield Close are not identically designed, there is a high degree of uniformity of architectural features across all 4 houses. These include similarly coloured predominantly brick and tile hung wall finishes and concrete tiled roofs, irregularly shaped windows, asymmetrical roof forms with a shallow front pitch and steep rear pitch, triangular shaped features including steeply pitched roof elements and the glazed lantern features on the front of Nos 1 and 3, roof lights, and ancillary flat-roofed single storey components. 10. Accordingly, the properties have a shared distinctly unique appearance which reflects their 1970s design origins. This sets them aside as a third visibly distinct residential element within the local townscape in addition to the period dwellings of Fairfield and the late 20th century development of Lights Close. 11. The existing single storey rear projection, including a steep, tiled mono pitch roof form, forms an integral part of the architectural style of the appeal property. The appeal scheme would result in the complete loss of this distinctive roof element and its replacement by a flat-roofed, blockier rectangular shaped feature which would be framed by the rear wall of the terrace and the pergola structure over. Due to the proposed large size of the terrace component, the result would be a harmful erosion of a key design element of the existing building with a replacement form which would appear as a large, incongruous feature within the group of Fairfield Close properties. 12. Moreover, the distinct architectural identity of this group of properties is reinforced by the visually unifying effect of the aforesaid prevailing brick and tile materials. Where there are elements of different materials, including render, this only relates to a small part of the building and does not detract from the overall prevailing commonality of materials. 13. The proposal would introduce white render, dark grey zinc/aluminium cladding and timber cladding walls and dark grey zinc/aluminium roofing to replace almost all the existing traditional brick and tiles on the appeal property. This would give a significantly more contemporary and varied appearance to the building, which would stand out starkly against the more uniform and muted appearance of the other 3 dwellings. Appeal Decision 6003018 3 14. The resulting combination of the proposed materials and the upper outdoor terrace structure would mean that the appeal property would have a very different contemporary appearance compared to that which exists and which is typical of the Close. This would be at odds with the existing prevailing character of properties within the Close and would harmfully undermine the strong sense of architectural unity and unique building design within this locality. 15. This contrasting, starker and visually more complex contemporary appearance would be visually apparent from within the public realm of Fairfield Close and from some parts of Fairfield and the riverside public footpath from where the group of houses are visible and from where they currently have a recessive appearance due to their simple, consistent dark palette of materials. 16. I saw during my site visit, that the other 3 houses incorporate first floor terraces. None of these are identical to the appeal proposal. Moreover, they comprise smaller structures which have a more subservient and lightweight glazed appearance in relation to the darker materials of their host properties. Also, their design and positioning on the buildings enable the original pitched roof form and tiled walls and roof of the dwellings to still be appreciated. As such, they do not undermine the architectural integrity of the original buildings to the extent that the appeal scheme would erode the character of the appeal property. 17. For the above reasons, I therefore conclude that the proposal would materially harm the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area. As such the proposal would be contrary to Policy HE2 of the Christchurch and East Dorset Local Plan Part 1 Core Strategy (April 2014) (the Core Strategy), in so much as this policy, amongst other things, seeks to ensure that new development is of a high design quality and is compatible with, or improves, its surroundings having regard to, inter alia, architectural style and materials. 18. This accords with the aims of Chapter 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (the Framework) of achieving well-designed places. Living conditions 19. One side of the appeal property is sited directly opposite the front elevation of No.2 Fairfield Close. I saw on my site visit that the front garden of this property appears to be used as a principal outdoor living space, as it is enclosed in views from the street, lawned and has direct access from patio doors on the front of that property and from a conservatory built onto its river-facing side elevation. Moreover, the rear garden is smaller and less usable as outdoor living space due to tree coverage. 20. Views are currently afforded from each of the 3 existing first floor lounge windows on the north side elevation of the appeal property into this private garden space of No.2. This is due to the low height of the bottom of these lounge windows above the floor level of the room, combined with the approximately 8m distance to the boundary of the garden. The windows also look directly towards principal ground floor windows and floor-to ceiling openings and first floor habitable room windows within the front elevation of No.2 at a wall-to-wall distance of around 16m. 21. As such, there is already a degree of overlooking from the appeal property into the main private outdoor living space of No.2, albeit views over the garden are partially screened by the garage, shed and boundary fence of No.2. Whilst there is mature Appeal Decision 6003018 4 soft landscaping along the side boundary with the appeal site, it was evident at the time of my site visit, that this does not provide year-round effective screening of the front of No.2. 22. The appeal scheme would replace these 3 windows with 4 new upper floor windows. 3 of these would be larger than the existing windows and would serve the proposed principal bedroom. The other would serve an ensuite. Although the windows would be taller than the existing windows, they would have a cill height of 1.7m above the floor level of the room which would prevent downward views towards the neighbouring property. As such, subject to a condition to ensure this minimum cill height, I am satisfied that these windows would not directly harm the privacy of the occupiers of No.2 Fairfield Close, and that there would be a benefit in respect of the removal of the current overlooking from the existing lounge windows. 23. The proposed upper-level terrace would have a floor space of a substantial size, as it would replace the whole area comprising the existing roof of the single storey rear projection. Apart from including a Brise-Soleil along part of its eastern side closest to the main dwelling, the remainder of the east side of the terrace would have uninterrupted views outward. Due to the orientation of the structure these would include views over the garden of the appeal property towards the front garden and front elevation windows of No.2, which, according to the evidence before me, are sited within 16.5m and 24.5m respectively from the edge of the proposed terrace. 24. The size of the terrace is such that it would potentially accommodate many users at one time. This combined with its long depth and elevated position in relation to No.2, would mean that the outdoor use of the terrace would reasonably have a harmful impact upon the privacy of the occupiers of No.2, particularly when they are using their private outdoor living space to the front of the property. 25. Such impacts would be exacerbated by noise and, when dark, any lighting associated with the use of the largely open terrace space. These factors could reasonably heighten awareness of the use of the terrace and enhance the neighbours’ perception of an invasion of their privacy. 26. I find that the proposed separation distances between the terrace and the front garden and front wall of No.2 would be insufficient to mitigate these effects. Neither do I consider that a condition requiring the east side to be sufficiently screened to address the matter to be appropriate. This is because this would substantially alter the scheme applied for by negating one of the intended purposes of the terrace of providing views over the river and countryside beyond the site. 27. My attention has been drawn to residential separation distances as set out in Supplementary Planning Guidance by Bournemouth Borough Council,1 as a useful comparison tool for the consideration of the appeal scheme, notwithstanding that this guidance has not been adopted by Christchurch Borough Council. 28. It is not unreasonable to reference adopted guidance covering other similar urban areas. However, the figures referred to do not specifically relate to the juxtaposition of buildings as proposed in the case of the appeal scheme, nor to the 1 Residential Development – A Design Guide (2008) Appeal Decision 6003018 5 inclusion of an open terrace at upper floor level. Notably, the 21m recommended minimum back-to-back distance between parallel 2 or 3 storey buildings specifies that it applies where there are no living room windows on upper floors. 29. I consider that where upper floor uses are more likely to result in more prolonged overlooking due to the use being primarily leisure-related and likely to involve more people, such as living rooms and terraces, it is reasonable that the separation distances are longer than those associated with bedrooms and bathrooms. 30. Moreover, I am not persuaded, based on the evidence before me, including the appellant’s photo taken from the bedroom of the appeal property, the submitted site section and my site visit, that the existing structures and landscaping along the front boundary of No.2 would be sufficient to prevent a loss of privacy from the proposed terrace. In coming to this view, I have taken account of the height of the terrace in relation to the boundary fence, garage and shed structures of No.2 and the deciduous nature of the Willow tree. 31. First floor terraces exist on Nos. 1-3 Fairfield Close. I saw on my site visit that they are not directly comparable with the appeal scheme having regard to the orientation of the properties in relation to the river and open countryside views, which lends itself to the inclusion of rear terraces, and the staggered linear arrangement of the properties so that the terraces do not directly face the neighbouring houses in the same way that the appeal property directly faces No.2. As such these terraces do not justify the approval of the appeal scheme having regard to neighbour privacy effects. 32. The harm I have identified that would arise from the proposed terrace would outweigh the benefits of removing the existing lounge windows. Moreover, whilst the replacement windows would not alone result in direct overlooking, they would be viewed from No.2 as forming part of a wide expanse of upper floor openings, comprising these windows, the side opening to the new principal bedroom balcony and the side of the terrace. 33. I consider that, viewed collectively, the number of upper floor openings spanning across the whole of the east side elevation facing No.2 would give rise to perceived as well as actual loss of privacy to the occupiers of No.2, notwithstanding the proposed cill heights of the new windows. 34. For the above reasons, I therefore conclude that the proposal would materially harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No.2 Fairfield Close, with particular regard to privacy. As such the proposal would be contrary to Core Strategy Policy HE2, in so much as this policy, amongst other things, seeks to ensure that new development is compatible with, or improves, its surroundings having regard to, inter alia, relationship to nearby properties, including minimising general disturbance to amenity. This accords with Paragraph 135 of the Framework in so much as it seeks to ensure that developments will function well with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users. Other Matters and planning balance 35. The Council has raised no objection to the proposal in respect of matters including the principle of development, highway safety, flood risk and biodiversity. In terms of the planning balance, the lack of identified harm is a neutral factor. Appeal Decision 6003018 6 36. Whilst no objections have been raised by third parties or statutory consultees, this is not determinative to my decision on this appeal, which I must determine on the merits of the scheme before me. 37. My attention has been drawn to a planning approval2 to replace the appeal property with two pairs of semi-detached houses, where the Council acknowledged that a contemporary design is acceptable in this location and which the appellant considers would give rise to privacy impacts upon No.2. There is no cogent evidence before me that the approved scheme, which was for outline permission with all matters reserved, is directly comparable with the current proposal having regard to the design and positioning of the dwellings in relation to No.2. Moreover, there is no evidence that reserved matters approval was subsequently granted. As such, this permission does not justify or outweigh the harm I have identified in respect of the two main issues. 38. The proposal would benefit the occupiers of the property by improving the functional space therein. The existing arrangement of accommodation may have partially derived from the former use of the building as offices. However, the property has enjoyed a long-standing residential use following the implementation of a change of use approval3 dated March 2013. Moreover, I have not been made aware of any specific problems in respect of the current residential layout that justify approval of the appeal scheme. 39. I acknowledge the appellant’s intention to improve the sustainability of the appeal property and to introduce renewable energy technology. These initiatives are supported in principle by the Framework and Core Strategy Policies ME3 and ME4. However, I am not persuaded, based on the evidence before me, that the level of improvement proposed could not be achieved by means other than the appeal scheme, noting that it is the appellant’s view that roof-mounted PV panels could be installed under Permitted Development. 40. With the above in mind, I find that the above benefits of the proposal are not sufficient to justify or outweigh the harm I have identified to the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area and the living conditions of the occupiers of No.2 Fairfield Close. Conclusion 41. The proposal conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole, and there are no other material considerations, including the Framework, which indicate that the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. 42. For the reasons given above, I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. S Leonard INSPECTOR 2 LPA Ref 8/15/0453 granted 20 May 2016 3 LPA Ref 8/12/0400