Removal of existing roof and replacement with a new pitched roof to create first-floor accommodation including two dormer windows of equal size on each side of the roof. Demolition of the existing detached garage and construction of a smaller, rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 28 April 2026 by S McIntyre BSc (Hons), CEng, MICE, MCIHT an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 05 June 2026 Appeal Ref: 6007016 13 Milford Drive, Bournemouth BH11 9HL • 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 Martin O'Connor, Global Optics UK Ltd, against the decision of Bournemouth Christchurch and Poole Council. • The application Ref is P/25/04440/HOU. • The development proposed is removal of existing roof and replacement with a new pitched roof to create first-floor accommodation including two dormer windows of equal size on each side of the roof. Demolition of the existing detached garage and construction of a smaller, rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. The description of development proposed on the planning application form includes detail and narrative that does not relate to the operative part of the development. The description of development on the Council’s decision notice was amended to that shown above. This is clearer than the description on the application form and this amended version was used by the appellant in their appeal form. I have therefore used the amended description in the banner heading above. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the dwelling and the surrounding area. Reasons 4. Milford Drive is a residential road containing predominantly detached bungalows with hipped roofs. While there is some variation resulting from modest extensions and infill development, the prevailing character is that of a regular, consistent pattern of single storey houses with modest accommodation in the roof. Notably, throughout the area, the changes that have taken place have not altered the eaves heights, which are consistent with the top of the ground floor windows on each property. This creates a modest character and uniformity in the street scene. Alongside this, the dwellings are moderately spaced and set back from the road with open frontages such that the street has a pleasant and spacious feel, particularly at roof level. 5. No 13 Milford Drive is a bungalow with a hipped roof and a low eaves level consistent with the prevailing character. It has a flat roof dormer on one side elevation and appears as a bungalow with modest accommodation in the roof. The Appeal Decision 6007016 2 property is typical of dwellings in the area, and the site positively contributes to the pleasant spacious character and appearance of the area. 6. The proposal to raise the roof, provide two side dormers and extend the roof to the rear would result in significant massing at roof level. The proposed clipped gable end at the front with raised eaves level and two first floor windows, combined with the side dormers would result in an appearance of significant accommodation in the roof space, detracting from the modest bungalow appearance of the existing dwelling. The proposal would look top heavy and not subordinate to the host building. For these reasons the development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the dwelling. 7. In the context of a largely consistent pattern of built form in a spacious and pleasant street scene, these design features, and the resulting scale and massing of the proposal would also be uncharacteristic of the area. Consequently, the development would appear prominent and incongruous in the street scene, unacceptably harming the character and appearance of the area. The use of materials that reflect those already present locally would not lessen this harm. 8. The appellant has drawn my attention to No 7 Milford Drive, which has flat roof dormers on both side elevations, as an example of development in the area which has significantly increased the roof mass. The planning history of the site is not before me. However, the dormers and depth of roof at No 7 appear significantly shorter than the appeal proposal, resulting in substantially less roof mass than the proposal before me. Moreover, at No 7 there is a hipped roof above low-level eaves which is characteristic of the area and not comparable with the proposed development. Notwithstanding this, the roof extensions at No 7 do make that dwelling appear top heavy, and this has resulted in some erosion of the character and appearance of the area. However, it is an isolated example that has not altered the general character of the area so as to justify further development which would be harmful. 9. The appellant draws on other examples in the area which they consider justify the proposed clipped gable end of the proposed development (Nos 3, 5,6 and 11 Milford Drive). None of these examples have a clipped gable and further, the eaves of these examples rest at the top of the ground floor window, characteristic of the area. These examples do not therefore provide an appropriate design context for the proposal or provide a clear justification for allowing the appeal. 10. No 11A Milford Drive is noted as having an increased roof mass, and No 27, with a front conservatory, as being an example of variation in built form. No 11A has small flat roof dormers to the front and back, with the rear dormer barely visible from the street. Its eaves are at the top of the ground floor window level, and the mass of the roof is much smaller than proposed at No 13. While the conservatory at No 27 is not typical of the area, it is in proportion with the dwelling and its neighbours. For these reasons, neither example leads me to reach an alternative conclusion on the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area. 11. No 24 Bembridge Road is provided as an example of a side roof dormer. This site is some distance from the appeal site and therefore has little influence on its context. Moreover, it has a single, modest side dormer which doesn’t appear top heavy. Its presence therefore does not weigh in favour of the appeal. Appeal Decision 6007016 3 12. For these reasons I conclude that the proposed development would have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the dwelling and surrounding area. It would therefore conflict with Policy CS41 of the Bournemouth Local Plan: Core Strategy (2012), which requires development to be designed to respect the site and its surroundings having regard to scale, character, and appearance. Other Matters 13. The appellant has referenced changes that have been made to the proposal following refusal of a previous planning application. However, I must determine the proposal before me, and I have considered this appeal on its individual merits. 14. Four consultation responses in support of the appeal proposal were submitted. These respondents deem the proposed development to be well considered and modest in scale. Notwithstanding these views, I have had regard to the character and scale of the proposal in reaching my decision and have found harm. Conclusion 15. The proposal conflicts with the development plan and material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed. S McIntyre INSPECTOR