Weather station on pole

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 15 July 2026 by I Ingledew BSc (Hons) Decision by T Law BSc MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 10 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6005818 50 Baring Road, Bournemouth, Bournemouth Christchurch Poole BH6 4DT • 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 Richmond-Coggan against the decision of Bournemouth Christchurch and Poole Council. • The application Ref is P/25/05068/HOU. • The development proposed is weather station on pole. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal Procedure 2. The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal. Preliminary Matters 3. A revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published in August 2026. In this instance, the issues most relevant to the appeal are unaffected by the revisions to the Framework. I am therefore satisfied that there is no requirement to seek further submissions on the revised Framework, and that no party would be disadvantaged by this. Main Issue 4. The main issues are the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area, and the effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of 48 Baring Road with particular regard to outlook and privacy. Reasons for the Recommendation Character and Appearance 5. The appeal property sits within the residential street of Baring Road, a row of detached, two storey dwellings. Long, rear gardens enclosed by fencing and mature vegetation are characteristic of the area, backing onto the equally spacious rear gardens of Harland Road. Whilst taller features are present within the gardens, these are generally associated with mature trees that contribute positively to the character and appearance of the area. An existing weather station is present within the appeal site, at a height matching that of the outbuilding it is fixed to. A further Appeal Decision 6005818 2 modest sized weather station is also visible from the appeal site within the garden of a nearby property. 6. The proposal would increase the height of the existing weather station to approximately 6m. Whilst the structure would remain limited in scale owing to its narrow profile and use of lightweight materials, its considerable height would nevertheless project well above the surrounding boundary treatments. As a result, the structure would become a more visually prominent feature within the area with its height incongruous amongst the lack of tall built form within the gardens of Baring Road and Harland Road. 7. Whilst I observed the presence of another weather station within a nearby garden, the structure appears lower in height that that of the proposal before me thus mitigating its visual presence with it merely glimpsed from neighbouring properties. This does not compare to the increased height of the proposed weather station which due to its height extending above boundary treatments would draw undue visual attention to a utilitarian feature not typical of the area, thus detracting from the character of the area. 8. For the reasons stated above, the proposal would therefore harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policy CS41 of the Bournemouth Local Plan: Core Strategy (2012) (BLPCS) which, amongst other things, seeks to ensure development respects the site and its surroundings. Living Conditions – Outlook and Privacy 9. The long, rear gardens characteristic of the area afford the occupiers of properties an open outlook, with mature vegetation as boundary treatments providing privacy between neighbouring gardens. 48 Baring Road adjoins the appeal site and shares the boundary closest to the proposed weather station. The existing boundary treatment and outbuilding currently screen the existing weather station from view of No 48. 10. Whilst the proposed structure would extend above the existing boundary treatment, it would comprise a narrow pole with only a small amount of equipment at its top. Given its limited scale, the proposal would not appear overbearing or dominant when viewed from the garden and rear windows of No 48. Whilst the proposal would be visible owing to its height, it would not erode openness or have a significantly harmful effect on the outlook on the occupiers of No 48. 11. With regard to 53 Harland Road and other adjoining premises, including those to the rear of the appeal property, the separation distances afforded by its siting and the long rear gardens would further reduce the effect of the proposal. Although the weather station would be visible from some neighbouring gardens and rear-facing windows, its slender form and limited scale would mean that it would not have an overbearing presence, nor harmfully impact outlook. 12. The operation of the weather station would not be expected to generate significant noise or disturbance owing to the modest size of the machinery, and there is no evidence before me to suggest otherwise. It therefore would not result in a level of noise that would be harmful to the occupiers of No 48 or other adjoining premises. Additionally, the equipment proposed is for the purpose of weather monitoring with no evidence before me indicating that the proposal would facilitate overlooking. As Appeal Decision 6005818 3 such, I do not find harm relating to the privacy of 48 Baring Road, 53 Harland Road and other adjoining premises resulting from this proposal. 13. For the reasons above, I therefore conclude that the proposal does not harm the living conditions of 48 Baring Road or 53 Harland Road or other nearby occupiers. As such, the proposal is in accordance with Policy CS41 of the BLPCS which, amongst other things, seeks to ensure that developments provide a high standard of amenity. Other Matters 14. The appellant has included a plan comparing the proposal to a flagpole and wind turbine that could be considered permitted development. Whilst these may share similar characteristics of a tall, vertical structure, they are nevertheless a different proposal to that before me and are subject to different limitations and restrictions. Neither of these suggested alternatives represent a similar, feasible fallback position that accords with the height and positioning of the proposal before me and therefore I attach these limited weight. 15. The appellant has also referred to planning permission granted for radio masts at 11 Beaconsfield Road, Christchurch1. Although large in scale and of a utilitarian appearance, the proposal before me is nevertheless different in nature. I have not been provided with full details of the case to conclude that it is directly comparable to the scheme before me. In any event, I have dealt with this appeal on its own merits. 16. The appellant has asserted the local plan is too generic in this instance to determine this particular case. Policy CS41 provides a clear basis for assessing the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of its surroundings and is therefore a relevant policy for the determination of this appeal. As I have identified harm in relation to character and appearance, the proposal is therefore contrary to the BLPCS and the Framework’s objectives of securing well designed development. Conclusion and Recommendation 17. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. I Ingledew APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 18. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. T Law INSPECTOR 1 P/25/01349/HOU & P/25/03278/CONDR