Land to rear of 1A Fancy Road, Poole (backland bungalow)

Decision

allowed, 30 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: D R Kay

Authority

Bournemouth Christchurch and Poole (South West)

Appeal reference

6005913

Application reference

P/25/04202/FUL

Procedure

written representations

Development

Demolition of a garage and outbuildings and erection of one two-bedroom bungalow with bin and bike store, on land split from the garden of 1A Fancy Road

Homes

1

Site context

inside settlement, garden land

Green Belt

No

Housing land supply

2.1 years

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

S4(1), N6

Development plan policies

Poole Local Plan 2018 PP27, PP32, PP39, Dorset Heathlands Planning Framework 2020-2025 SPD, Poole Harbour Recreation 2019-2024 SPD

Main issues

living conditions of future occupiers

Summary

A backland bungalow on part of a garden in Poole was refused only because the host house's upper bedroom window would overlook the new home's garden and living room. The inspector found the relationship no different from existing neighbour relationships and a bedroom window less intrusive. Habitat tariffs were secured and paid, so N6 was met, and with a 2.1-year supply the S4(1) presumption applied. Allowed.

Issues and findings

• Transition. "I have not found the changes to have significant effect on the issues within the case. I have, however, determined the appeal in accordance with the revised Framework" (DL ¶3).
• Privacy: no harm. "the relationship between the upper floor rear window of the host dwelling and the appeal proposal would not result in harmful levels of overlooking and loss of privacy" (DL ¶13).
• N6: PASS. Mitigation "has been secured by a signed and dated S106 agreement and mitigation payments have been made, it would comply with Policy N6, and therefore, not provide a strong reason for refusing the proposed development" (DL ¶25).
• S4: PASS. "Having examined the relevant decision-making policies in the framework outlined in Policy S4(2), I find that the proposal would accord with these requirements" (DL ¶27).

Planning balance

S4(1) inside a settlement, after checking the S4(2) circumstances. Plan-led conclusion: accords with the development plan read as a whole (DL ¶35).

What made the difference

A single, narrow amenity objection that the inspector did not accept, on a site where the Council had no character or neighbour concerns and habitat mitigation was already paid.

Transferable points

• An S4 letter that expressly checks the S4(2) circumstances before approving (DL ¶27).
• Habitat mitigation secured and paid before the decision means N6 gives no strong reason for refusal (DL ¶25).

Policy findings

Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.

Key facts

• Council supply 2.1 years at 1 April 2024, with a 20% buffer (DL 24)
• Parties not consulted on the 2026 Framework; changes found to have no significant effect, but the appeal was decided under it (DL 3)
• Habitat mitigation £575 (Dorset Heathlands) and £187 (Poole Harbour) plus admin fees, already paid (DL 20-21)
• Council found no harm to character, light or neighbours; the only objection was overlooking of the new dwelling from the host's gable bedroom window (DL 8-9)
• Costs application by the appellants, the subject of a separate decision (DL 2)

Sources

• Appeal on the Planning Inspectorate appeals service
• Decision letter (Planning Inspectorate)

This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.