First floor front extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 26 May 2026 by Lucy Cuthbertson BSc Decision by T Law BSc MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 25 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6006907 4 Wharncliffe Gardens, Christchurch, Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole BH23 5DN • 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 Ian Perrett against the decision of Bournemouth Christchurch and Poole Council. • The application Ref is P/25/04438/HOU. • The development proposed is first floor front extension. 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 issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. Reasons for the Recommendation 5. Wharncliffe Gardens and the adjoining Waterford Gardens form part of an established suburban residential area characterised predominantly by detached chalet bungalows set within generous plots. The prevailing townscape is defined by modestly scaled dwellings with pitched or hipped roofs, some incorporating small dormers that remain clearly subservient to the host building. Consistent building forms, open boundary treatments and spacious landscaped frontages combine to create a coherent and attractive suburban character. While there is some variation in architectural detailing, the area's defining characteristics are its consistent roofscape and the proportionate domestic scale of its built form. Appeal Decision 6006907 2 6. The proposed development would introduce a two-storey front extension with a flat roof extending across a substantial part of the principal elevation. Whilst it would be positioned above an existing projection, the proposal would materially alter the form and appearance of the host dwelling by replacing a modest, pitched-roof projection with a broader, box-like mass. As a result, the proposal would disrupt the established architectural composition of the dwelling, eroding its characteristic chalet-bungalow form and introducing a discordant feature that neither reflects the prevailing roofscape nor the proportions of surrounding development. 7. The sites prominent position on a corner plot with an open frontage prominence of the site, occupying a corner plot with open frontage, would further exacerbate the visual impact of the proposal. The extended form would be readily visible from multiple vantage points within the public realm, increasing its influence on the street scene. It would appear as a dominant two-storey feature that would not read as a subordinate addition, but rather as a competing element that overwhelms the host dwelling. 8. The extensive flat roof, combined with the width and depth of the extension, would result in a bulky and visually intrusive addition that contrasts sharply with the consistent pattern of pitched and hipped roofs that characterises the surrounding area. This departure from the established roof forms would undermine the visual cohesion of the street, introducing an incongruous feature that draws undue attention. 9. While some properties within the wider area incorporate flat-roofed elements, these are generally limited in scale and remain clearly subordinate to the principal roof form of the dwelling. By contrast, the proposed development would introduce a substantial flat-roofed first-floor addition that would neither appear subservient nor integrate successfully with the existing roof structure 10. It is also acknowledged that development along Wharncliffe Road to the south exhibits a greater degree of architectural variety, including more contemporary designs and larger buildings. However, this character does not extend into Wharncliffe Gardens and Waterford Gardens to the same extent. There is a clear transition between these areas, with the appeal site forming part of a quieter, lower- scale enclave rather than the more varied frontage along Wharncliffe Road. 11. The appellant has drawn comparisons with nearby contemporary developments., such as Needles Watch. Needles Watch is materially different, comprising a three- storey flatted development which occupies a distinct position. It does not reflect the established pattern of detached chalet bungalows within Wharncliffe Gardens and Waterford Gardens. 12. The proposed development would result in harm to the character and visual amenity of the street scene. The design, by virtue of its scale, bulk, height, and architectural form, would fail to integrate with its surroundings or reflect the established pattern of development. The adverse effects identified under the main issue substantially outweigh any benefits derived from the proposed development. As such, the proposal would conflict with Policy HE2 of the Christchurch and East Dorset Local Plan Part 1 Core Strategy (2014) and Policy H12 of the Borough of Christchurch Local Plan (2001). Appeal Decision 6006907 3 Other Matters 13. It is noted that an alternative scheme has previously been approved and that no harm to residential amenity has been identified. However, these considerations do not outweigh the identified harm to character and appearance. Conclusion and Recommendation 14. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. Lucy Cuthbertson APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 15. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. T Law INSPECTOR