Loft conversion with a rear dormer window and two front dormer windows to dwellinghouse

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: 23 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6008839 109 Catalina Drive, Poole, BH15 1TQ • 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 Megan Ayres against the decision of Bournemouth Christchurch and Poole Council. • The application Ref is P/26/00121/HOU. • The development proposed is Loft conversion with a rear dormer window and two front dormer windows to dwellinghouse. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for Loft conversion with a rear dormer window and two front dormer windows to dwellinghouse at 109 Catalina Drive, Poole, BH15 1TQ in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref P/26/00121/HOU, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 607-D01-P6, 607-D02-P6, 607-D03-P6, 607- D04-P6, 607-D05-P6, 607-D06-P6, 607-D07-P6, 607-D08-P6, 607-D09-P6, 607-D10-P6. 3) Demolition or construction works shall take place only between 0800 and 1800 hours on Mondays – Fridays and 0900 – 1300 hours on Saturdays and shall not take place at any time on Sundays or on Bank or Public Holidays. 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 Matter 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. APO 6008839 2 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. The appeal property is a three storey mid-terrace dwelling within a U-shaped group that encloses a parking courtyard. The wider estate is notable for its variation in height, with buildings stepping up and down across the site, together with staggered building lines, a range of balconies and a mix of house types, including both two-storey and three-storey dwellings. The roofscape across Cataline Drive includes a number of dormer additions. As such, dormer windows form an established feature of the area, contributing to its evolving character. 6. Within the immediate and wider context, there are several examples of substantial dormer extensions, including at Nos 94, 98 and 93 Catalina Drive. These developments include large front-facing formers, in some cases spanning significant portions of the roof plane and sometimes also incorporating balconies. These schemes are clearly visible within the street scene. 7. The appeal proposal seeks to convert the existing loft space through the introduction of two gabled dormers on the front elevation and a single flat-roofed dormer to the rear. Compared to the previous refused scheme, the front-facing element has been broken down into two smaller dormers, reducing its visual mass. The ridge height of the property would remain unchanged, and the dormers would be read as additions within the existing roof form. 8. The rear dormer, whilst extending across much of the roof width, would be set in from the edge and set down from the ridge, resulting in a subservient appearance. Further it would be positioned on a less publicly visible elevation and is of a similar scale and appearance to other examples in the surrounding area. 9. The proposal would not result in an overly dominant or incongruous features and would preserve the character and appearance of the area. The proposed development would therefore accord with Policy PP27 of the Poole Local Plan 2018, which seeks high-quality design that respects local character, as well as being in accordance with the Framework. Other Matters 10. I have had regard to the comments made by interested parties with regards to character and appearance, overshadowing and disturbance. I have found that the proposed development would not harm the character of the area. With regards to overshadowing, in relation to the host building the proposed additions are minor in scale and do not extend above the existing ridge height. These minor additions would not increase overshadowing to a harmful extent. With regards to noise and disturbance during construction, whilst this would be temporary, due to the terraced nature of the host dwelling, a condition restricting construction hours would limit disturbance to daytime hours. Conditions 11. I have recommended a condition requiring development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans to provide certainty. APO 6008839 3 12. I also recommend a condition relating to construction works time limits. This is necessary to ensure that the construction works are carefully managed to mitigate potential harm to neighbouring occupiers’ living conditions as a result of noise and disturbance. Conclusion and Recommendation 13. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be allowed. Lucy Cuthbertson APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 14. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed. T Law INSPECTOR