Case Reference: 3315613

Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 14 November 2023
by A J Sutton BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 24th November 2023
Appeal Ref: APP/V1260/W/23/3315613
104 Horsham Avenue, Bournemouth BH10 7JQ
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a refusal to grant planning permission.
• The appeal is made by [APPELLANT] against the decision of Bournemouth Christchurch
and Poole Council.
• The application Ref 7-2022-28430-A, dated 14 September 2022, was refused by notice
dated 23 November 2022.
• The development proposed is described as ‘demolish garage and garden room, sever
land and erect 1 No 2 bed bungalow with parking and bike store.’
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Applications for Costs
2. An application for costs was made by [APPELLANT] against Bournemouth
Christchurch and Poole Council. This application is the subject of a separate
Decision.
Procedural Matters
3. Plans that were not part of the original application have been submitted with
the appeal. Attention is drawn to the Wheatcroft judgment but the Holborn1
judgment, which refined principles outlined in Wheatcroft, provides clarification
on this matter.
4. One of the plans largely shows vehicle tracking, providing clarification on a
matter already considered in the application process. However, the other
amended plan shows two parking spaces covering almost all of the space at the
front of the existing dwelling of No 104. This would be a fundamental change to
the single parking space originally proposed, that retained significantly more
front garden. This different scheme may result in impacts that were not
previously considered.
5. Also, the Council’s comments on these plans, in this appeal process, appear
limited to highway matters. Moreover, the evidence suggests that re-
consultation, beyond highway matters, has not been carried out in respect of
this different scheme. On this basis, it would be procedurally unfair to the other
parties involved to consider this revised plan in this appeal. Accordingly, the
considerations in this decision are limited to the original application scheme.
1 Ref: Holborn Studios Ltd v The Council of the London Borough of Hackney [2017] EWHC 2823
Main Issues
6. The main issues are:
• Whether the proposed dwelling would provide satisfactory living conditions
for the future occupants, having regard to privacy;
• The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area;
and
• Whether the proposal would make satisfactory provision for parking.
Reasons
Living Conditions
7. The appeal property is in a short row of dwellings(Nos 100 – 110) that are part
of a grid pattern of development in a residential estate. These properties have
linear plots so that many dwellings are bounded by the rear gardens of
neighbouring properties. As such, occupants of No 104 and surrounding
properties experience some overlooking, particularly when they are in their
rear gardens. However, rear gardens in this row of dwellings are a good length,
and this provides a good degree of separation with properties to the rear. This
degree of separation ensures that the rear habitable rooms of these dwellings
are not closely overlooked, and therefore feel reasonably private.
8. The two-storey dwellings on Stour Mews, at the rear boundaries of Nos 100 –
110, seem relatively recent additions to the estate. The rear gardens of those
dwellings are considerably smaller than the gardens at Nos 100 – 110. As
such, occupants of dwellings on Stour Mews have close and elevated views
from their rear first-floor windows over the rear gardens of Nos 100 – 110.
9. The footprint of the proposed dwelling would fill the middle section of the
existing rear garden of No 104. The new dwelling would have a rear garden,
but this would be small. Therefore, the rear elevation of the proposed dwelling
would only be separated from the rear of dwellings on Stour Mews by a
boundary fence and a relatively small amount of garden space.
10. The proposed rear elevation of the dwelling would have an expanse of floor to
ceiling glazing. This glazing would be the principal source of light and outlook
for one of the two bedrooms and the open plan lounge. Given their size, these
windows would allow relatively open views of a considerable section of the
internal living space of this proposed small dwelling. Even with a high fence at
the rear shared boundary, the occupants of the Stour Mews properties would
have elevated and close up views of much of the living space inside the new
dwelling and of its small rear garden, from their rear upper floor windows.
11. Without a reasonable amount of separation between the proposed and existing
dwellings, the nature of overlooking that would occur with this development
would be materially different to the overlooking that residents living in this area
currently experience. This proposed design, combined with its closeness to
two-storey dwellings at the rear, would not provide a level of privacy, either
inside or outside the new dwelling, that future occupants should reasonably
expect in a home.
12. The appellant proposes improved landscaping at the rear boundary. However,
such a measure would not screen views from an upper floor level. A condition
could be imposed that requires part of the glazing to be obscured. However,
even if the top of the windows were screened, a considerable expanse of the
proposed rear elevation would be clear glass, and this sizeable expanse of
glazing would offer a poor level of privacy to the future occupants, given the
close proximity to dwellings at the rear. For these reasons, imposing conditions
to deal with these matters would not address the harm identified in this case.
13. Also, such a measure would not resolve the lack of privacy that would be
experienced in the small garden. Future occupants would have little respite
from the sense of being so closely overlooked when inside their dwelling and in
their rear garden. In this regard, the proposal would not provide acceptable
living conditions for the future occupants of this proposed dwelling.
14. The bungalows at the rear of properties Nos 91 – 95 and 103 and to the south
of the appeal property on Horsham Avenue (Nos 64, 68, 76a and 90) are
similar in layout to this proposal. However, those infill bungalows are bound at
the rear by mobile homes, single storey/dormer style properties or by playing
fields. Also, the rear elevation of the infill dwelling at No 31 faces rear gardens
and the new dwelling at No 56 filled a side garden at that corner property. As
such, all those infill dwellings do not have two storey properties close to their
rear boundary. The circumstances in those cases are distinctly different from
this proposal in this respect.
15. The Council has recently granted planning permission for a bungalow at the
rear of No 110, and this dwelling will have a two-storey house at its rear
boundary. However, No 110 is adjacent to the countryside, and the side
boundary of its plot is not overlooked by properties. Therefore, occupants of
that dwelling will enjoy a significantly greater degree of privacy than would be
so in this case. That development is not directly comparable with this proposal
for this reason.
16. 10 and 14 Stour Mews are set close to each other. I have also had regard to
the dwelling at the rear of No 58, and 64 Kinson Park Road, which is close to
No 96. However, I have limited information about the considerations that led to
those developments. This aside, while noting the similarities in plot size and
proximity of dwellings in those cases, development elsewhere should not justify
poor living conditions at the appeal property. These surrounding infill
developments have not altered my findings on this matter for the above
reasons.
17. Accordingly, I find that the proposed dwelling would not provide satisfactory
living conditions for the future occupants, having regard to privacy. In this
respect the proposal would conflict with Policies CS22 and CS41 of the
Bournemouth Local Plan: Core Strategy (Core Strategy) and Policy 6.8 of the
Bournemouth District Wide Local Plan (Local Plan). These Policies collectively
state that development which by virtue of its design would be detrimental to,
amongst other matters, the amenity of any part of the Borough will not be
permitted.
Character and Appearance
18. The appeal property is at the edge of a residential estate that comprises a mix
of two-storey dwellings and bungalows. With a traditional 20th Century style of
dwellings, in a linear pattern, the area has a distinctly suburban character. In
turn, these features provide coherency and consistency in the street scene.
19. While there is a consistent character at the front of properties, there are
several sub-divided plots in this area. However, these recent infill
developments are generally located to the rear of existing properties such that
they have not harmfully eroded the coherency in the built form in the public
realm.
20. The principle of sub-dividing the existing plot to form a new dwelling at the
rear would not be out of keeping in this area where this appears a relatively
common feature. Both dwellings would have small rear gardens, but properties
in this area have a mix of plot sizes such that this would not be at odds with
surrounding development.
21. The proposed dwelling would fill much of the width of the plot and its footprint
would be similar to the existing dwelling at No 104. However, the flat roof
design would minimise the bulk of the proposed dwelling and it would appear
subservient to that existing dwelling in this regard. Moreover, dwellings to the
rear and side of No 104 are built close to side boundaries and in this context,
the proposed dwelling would not appear incongruously cramped or out of
keeping.
22. The proposed dwelling would have a relatively modern design. However, the
contemporary structure would be behind existing dwellings and therefore would
be visually contained to the rear of properties. As such the proposal would not
significantly erode existing design consistency that positively characterises the
street scene.
23. In respect to visual changes to the rear, a new drive and hardstanding would
cover a significant part of the existing garden. However, some garden space
would be retained for both dwellings. Moreover, as already outlined, new
driveways and parking at the rear of existing properties is not an uncommon
feature in this area.
24. Also, while the design of the new proposed dwelling would contrast with the
style of existing dwellings, its outbuilding aesthetic and simple form would be
sensitive to the rear gardens that surround the new dwelling. Furthermore,
being subservient in height, the proposed dwelling would not appear to
harmfully dominate or disrupt this mixed rear garden setting.
25. Accordingly, I find that the proposal would not have a significant harmful effect
on the character and appearance of the area. In this regard the proposal would
accord with Policies CS6, CS22, and CS41 of the Core Strategy and Policy 6.8
of the Local Plan. These Policies collectively require that development outside
the preferred housing areas will only be permitted where, amongst other
matters, the development is in keeping with the surrounding area, and any plot
severance has sufficient land that can be assembled to create a type and layout
of development that preserves or enhances the area’s residential character.
26. The proposal would also be consistent with guidance of the Residential
Development: A Design Guide, with regards this issue.
Parking
27. The Council, during this appeal process, has indicated that it no longer has
concerns regarding vehicles manoeuvring in the site, subject to conditions. I
find nothing to dispute this conclusion.
28. Bournemouth Christchurch and Poole Parking Standards Supplementary
Planning Document (Parking Standards SPD) sets out details of parking
requirements for new development proposals, with an emphasis on good
design and sustainability. Parking standards, in this suburban zone, are two
onsite parking spaces for a dwelling with four habitable rooms and one space
for a three habitable room dwelling. The proposal makes provision of one
onsite parking space for No 104, and it is asserted that there would be a
shortfall of one space for this existing dwelling.
29. The SPD advises on variations on these parking standards, clarifying that
reductions in parking provision may be appropriate where fully justified.
Factors to consider may include the nature and location of the development, or
where there is greater public transport accessibility. Relevant to this matter,
the current version of the Framework, published following the adoption of the
Core Strategy, states that development should only be prevented or refused on
highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety.
30. The appeal property is in a residential road, in a short cul-de-sac. It is at the
settlement’s edge where public transport options may be limited. However, it is
a relatively short walk to the local services and bus stop on the main road.
Also, there is space on the street where vehicles may be safely parked.
31. The increase in vehicle numbers, resulting from the proposal, would be limited
given the scale of the development. Moreover, existing properties in the area
generally have some off-street parking provision, and I find no evidence that
there is unacceptable pressure on the on-street parking spaces, such that the
highway is unsafe in this area. Nor do I find that the highway would be made
unsafe by the slight increase in vehicles likely to be associated with this
development.
32. Furthermore, although not indicated on the plan there appears sufficient space
at the appeal property for secure cycle storage. This outcome could be secured
by condition.
33. In light of the above, I find the proposal would make satisfactory provision for
parking. In this regard, the proposal would accord with Policies CS6 and CS16
of the Core Strategy and Policy 6.8 of the Local Plan. These Policies collectively
required that parking provision for new development shall be in accordance
with the Council’s adopted parking standards.
34. The proposal would also be generally consistent with the guidance in the
Parking Standards SPD, and the provisions of the Framework, in regard to this
matter.
Other Matters
35. The submitted plans do not show space for waste management storage.
However, while the proposal would result in a considerable part of the existing
garden being developed, both dwellings would have rear gardens that could
accommodate bins. Moreover, the evidence indicates that there would be
space at the front of the drive for bins to be placed on waste collection day.
36. Also, the increased number of bins at the property, resulting from an additional
small dwelling, would be limited. There would be space for the bins from just
two properties, to be stored temporarily at this location on collection day,
without unduly conflicting with vehicle movements. As such I find the proposal
could include suitable waste management arrangements, subject to conditions,
and would accord with Policy CS38 of the Core Strategy in respect of this
matter.
37. The Dorset Heathlands Special Area of Conservation and Special Protection
Area host protected priority habitats and species typical of lowland heathland,
wetlands and dunes. The proposal would result in a new dwelling in the zone of
influence of the Heathland habitats. Future occupants would likely add to the
recreational pressures in the area. As such, likely significant adverse effects on
the integrity of the protected habitats cannot be ruled out. Consequently, an
Appropriate Assessment is necessary in this case. The appellant has submitted
a legal agreement related to mitigation of the adverse impacts. However, as I
have found harm in respect of other main issues it is not necessary to consider
this matter further.
Planning Balance
38. The Council is unable to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply. Evidence
suggests that the shortfall is substantial. Therefore, the provisions set out in
Paragraph 11 of the Framework are relevant in this case. This states that
decisions should apply a presumption in favour of sustainable development,
and where the policies most important for determining the applications are out-
of-date, granting permission unless, amongst other matters, any adverse
impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the
benefits, when assessed against the policies of the Framework.
39. I have not found harm in respect of highways, parking or waste management,
with conditions. The Council has not raised issues about the impact on existing
residents, subject to conditions. However, development should not result in
harm. Consequently, these are neutral factors in this case.
40. The new home would contribute to the Government’s objective to significantly
boost the supply of homes. There is local policy support for small family homes
and this proposal would help to address the urgent need for housing in the
area. It would be in a built-up area, close to local services and some public
transport options. As a small windfall site, it could be built quickly and there
would be economic benefits during the construction phase. Future occupants
would also contribute to the local community and economy. Environmental
benefits, with on-site biodiversity net gain and energy efficiencies, could be
secured by condition. These matters weigh in favour of the proposal. However,
the social, economic and environmental benefits would be limited given the
scale of the development.
41. I have not found harm to character and appearance. However, there would be
harm with regards to living conditions. The Framework requires a high standard
of amenity for existing and future users, and Policy 6.8 of the Local Plan and
Policies CS22 and CS41 of the Core Strategy are generally consistent with this
provision of the Framework. The proposal would not be a good design and
would not be an optimal or effective use of the site in respect of this matter.
42. The identified adverse impacts, in respect of future occupants’ amenities, would
significantly and demonstrably outweigh the limited benefits outlined above,
when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. This
would be the case if these benefits are considered together. An urgent need for
housing should not be a justification for a poor quality home. Therefore, the
presumption in favour of development does not apply in this case.
43. Attention has been drawn to policies that are not in dispute. However, I find
that the considerations in this appeal would not justify approving a
development which would be contrary to the development plan when read as a
whole.
Conclusion
44. For the reasons stated above and having regard to the development plan, the
Framework and other material considerations, the appeal should be dismissed.
A J Sutton
INSPECTOR


Costs Decision
Site visit made on 14 November 2023
by A J Sutton BA Hons DipTP MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 24th November 2023
Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/V1260/W/23/3315613
104 Horsham Avenue, Bournemouth BH10 7JQ
• The application is made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, sections 78,
322 and Schedule 6, and the Local Government Act 1972, section 250(5).
• The application is made [APPELLANT] for a full award of costs against Bournemouth
Christchurch and Poole Council.
• The appeal was against the refusal of planning permission to demolish garage and
garden room, sever land and erect 1 No 2 bed bungalow with parking and bike store.
Decision
1. The application for an award of costs is refused.
Reasons
2. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) sets out that irrespective of the outcome
of an appeal, costs may only be awarded where a party has behaved
unreasonably, in either a procedural or substantive way, which has directly
caused another party to incur unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal
process.
3. Examples of unreasonable behaviour include preventing or delaying
development which should clearly be permitted, vague, generalised or
inaccurate assertions about a proposal’s impact, not determining similar cases
in a consistent manner, and, refusing to provide reasonably requested
information, when a more helpful approach would probably have resulted in
either the appeal being avoided altogether, or the issues to be considered
being narrowed, thus reducing the expense associated with the appeal.
4. The PPG advises an application for costs will need to clearly demonstrate how
any alleged unreasonable behaviour has resulted in unnecessary or wasted
expense.
5. The Council’s decision notice states the reasons for refusing planning
permission and these reasons are substantiated with reference to relevant
national and local policy and guidance. The officer’s report also provides
analysis of the proposal’s potential impacts. The Council’s reasons for refusing
planning permission are not vague, generalised or inaccurate in this respect.
6. Also, the officer’s report acknowledges significant infill development has
occurred in the area. As outlined in the appeal decision most of these infill
developments have distinctly different circumstances than the appeal proposal
and are not directly comparable. I find no compelling evidence that the Council
has been either inconsistent in its decision making or has disregarded appeal
decisions relating to development in this area. The Council has not behaved
unreasonably in this regard.
7. The applicant asserts that the Council should have adopted a more helpful
approach in respect of the amended plans. While considering these plans
during the application process may have narrowed the issues to be dealt with
at appeal, this would not have altered the outcome in this case. Moreover, the
amended plans were prepared prior to the Council’s decision such that the
expenses incurred with regards addressing this matter during this appeal
process was limited.
8. In any event, while I have not agreed with the Council’s judgements on all the
issues raised, I agree that this proposal would provide poor living conditions,
and I have dismissed the appeal on that ground. Therefore, the Council has
not prevented or delayed development which should clearly be permitted.
9. In light of the above it has not been demonstrated that the Council has
behaved unreasonably during the application process or in refusing planning
permission in this case. As a result, I find that the behaviour of the Council has
not led to the applicant incurring unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal
process for the reasons outlined above.
Conclusion
10. Having considered all submitted evidence and for the reasons stated, an award
of costs is not justified in this case.
A J Sutton
INSPECTOR