Alteration and extension of the house including single and two storey extensions (previous extensions to be demolished)

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 27 August 2026 by Rachael Pipkin BA (Hons) MPhil MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 15 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6013441 19 Seaway Avenue, Christchurch BH23 4EU • 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 and Mrs Power against the decision of Bournemouth Christchurch and Poole Council. • The application Ref is P/26/00981/HOU. • The development proposed is Alteration and extension of the house including single and two storey extensions (previous extensions to be demolished). Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 3. Seaway Avenue is a residential street characterised by large detached and link- detached properties set back from the road behind front gardens and driveways and a tree-lined verge. Together with the separation of properties from each other, this gives the area a spacious character. Properties date from the early twentieth century with more modern development towards the southern end of the street. Many properties have been extended and remodelled, resulting in a noticeable variation in their size and appearance. 4. Number 19 is a two-storey link detached property with a traditional appearance. The proposal would substantially remodel the property resulting in a more contemporary appearance. Existing single-storey side and rear extensions would be demolished and replaced with larger single-storey extensions to the side and a full width part single / part two-storey extension to the rear. This two-storey extension would wrap around the southern side of the property, where it would be set in a short distance from the boundary with Number 21 at first floor level. 5. There is an existing gap between Nos 19 and 21 above both properties’ adjacent single-storey garages. This would be reduced by the first floor side extension. However, it would be set back from the front elevation with a hipped roof and lower ridge height than the main roof. In combination with its position set in from the shared boundary, it would not unacceptably close up this gap. Views between properties, which I observed are a feature of some, but not all, properties along the Appeal Decision 6013441 2 road, would still be available between Nos 19 and 21. The proposal would not unduly erode the spacious character of the area or the streetscene. 6. The first floor rear extension would extend across much of the width of the original dwelling. It would have a flat roof which would terminate above the eaves and extend slightly beyond the line of the hip of the main roof. Whilst the appellant has argued that this design allows for the retention of the original building and its roof form, the juxtaposition of this large cubic extension extending above the eaves and roof line would be visually jarring. Its significant size and rearward extension would appear as a disproportionate and incongruous addition which along with its awkward relationship with the existing roof would be visible from the street between the first floor gap between Nos 17 and 19. This would detract from the appearance of the host property, the streetscene and the character and appearance of the area. 7. Between Nos 19 and 21, the extent of the rearward projection would not be visible from the public realm due to the position and size of the first floor side extension and its roof. It would nonetheless have a similarly discordant relationship with the hipped roofed elements of the host property and this side extension. However, this would only be visible from neighbouring properties. 8. My attention has been drawn to various other developments locally which have remodelled traditional houses to more contemporary forms, some have been extended to incorporate flat-roofed designs others are also large scale, as would be the case here. However, none of these are the same as the appeal proposal and they do not justify the scheme before me which I have considered on its own individual merits. 9. Whilst elements of the scheme would be acceptable, the large size of the rear first floor extension and its failure to integrate with the host property would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore conflict with Policy HE2 of the Christchurch and East Dorset Local Plan: Part 1- Core Strategy (2014) which requires design to be of a high quality, reflecting and enhancing local distinctiveness and to be compatible with its surroundings. Other Matters 10. The scheme has not been identified as causing harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. However, this is a neutral factor. 11. The scheme proposes the extension of a dwelling within a settlement. It does not provide a net gain in residential development. The proposal would extend the original dwelling rather than demolition and construction of a replacement dwelling which would be a more sustainable approach. However, I give this limited weight given the extent of demolition proposed as part of the redesign. In any event, this is not a factor that would be sufficient to outweigh the harm that I have found. Conclusion 12. For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed. Rachael Pipkin INSPECTOR