Town Planner Pro
Search appeal decisions

Planning appeal decision

Dismissed28 January 20253327599

9-11 Upper Norwich Road, Bournemouth, BH2 5RA

described on the application form as, “Demolition of existing buildings and erect a block of flats with associated bin and cycle store”

Authority
Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole
Appeal type
minor · Planning Appeal
Procedure
Written Representations
Development
residential · Minor Dwellings
Inspector
O'Doherty A

Main issues, as the Inspector framed them

  • whether or not the proposed loss of commercial floorspace would be acceptable
  • whether the proposed development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the West Cliff and Poole Hill conservation area
  • the effect of the proposed development on the setting and significance of a nearby listed terrace (a Grade II listed building)
  • the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of nearby residential properties, with particular regard to outlook, sunlight, daylight, and privacy
  • whether the proposed development would provide satisfactory living conditions for future occupiers, with particular regard to private amenity space, internal space, privacy, outlook, and daylight
  • whether the proposed development would adequately cater for cyclists, residential accessibility and refuse collection
  • whether the proposed development and nearby properties would be at an unacceptable risk of flooding

What decided it

The combined substantial harm to two designated heritage assets (the conservation area and listed building setting) provided a strong reason for refusal under paragraph 11(d)(i) of the Framework that was not outweighed by the modest housing benefits, particularly given the Council's housing land supply shortfall did not automatically render the relevant development plan policies out-of-date in substance.

The modest benefits of providing 10 residential units and contributing to housing supply (moderate weight) were substantially outweighed by the very substantial weight given to the unacceptable loss of commercial floorspace, substantial combined harm to two designated heritage assets, harm to neighbouring residents' living conditions, inadequate living conditions for future occupiers, and failure to advance equality of opportunity for disabled people.

Framework references: 11, 115, 116, 125, 129, 216

Plan policies cited: Policy CS27, Policy CS21, Policy CS39, Policy CS41, Policy CS7, Policy CS2, Policy CS4, Policy CS6, Policy CS18, Policy 4.4, Policy 6.10, Policy D4

The main issues and the deciding factor are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.

In the app this decision sits on the map beside every other appeal around it, with the full reasoning summary, the letter held on file, and the case law it applies.