# 40 West Way, Poole - **Decision:** dismissed, 24 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: B Plenty - **Authority:** Bournemouth Christchurch and Poole (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6006144 - **Application reference:** P/25/04279/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Sever land and erect a self-build dwelling in rear garden with new vehicular access off West Way - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 2.55 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4, L2(1)(d)(i), L2(1)(d)(ii), N6(1)(a)(i) - **Development plan policies:** Poole Local Plan 2018 PP2, PP27, PP28, PP32, PP34, PP37, PP39 - **Main issues:** character and appearance, neighbour outlook, future occupiers' daylight, Dorset Heathlands SPA, Poole Harbour SPA - **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, substantially-outweighed, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, self-build-unsecured, habitats-spa, habitats-refusal, bng-exemption-not-shown, residential-garden-plot, l2-1-d-curtilage, drafting-slip ## Summary A self-build house in the steep rear garden of a suburban corner plot in Poole. Dismissed despite a 2.55-year supply and a sustainable transport corridor. The cramped, triangular plot conflicted with the street scene (L2(1)(d)(i)), the new house would overbear the host dwelling (L2(1)(d)(ii)), and unsecured SPA mitigation triggered N6(1)(a)(i). Together these "substantially outweighed" the benefits under S4. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Letter is dated a week after publication and applies the 2026 Framework (policies S3, S4, HO7, L2, N6) without mentioning any consultation of the parties. - **Character — L2(1)(d)(i): FAIL.** "the new plot would be uncharacteristically small" (DL ¶6). "The LP does not prescribe minimum plot sizes and seeks high densities … However, such objectives would not over-ride the requirement for development to be sympathetic to local character" (DL ¶7). "the proposal would not be consistent with the overall streetscene, in conflict with policy L2(1)(d)(i)" (DL ¶27). Design itself acceptable (DL ¶8–10). - **Neighbour outlook — L2(1)(d)(ii): FAIL.** "The Council has not drawn my attention to any standards that would be breached … but the separation distance … would be insufficient to prevent the proposal being substantially overbearing" (DL ¶12). - **Future occupiers: PASS.** North-facing but adequate daylight/outlook; complies with PP37 (DL ¶14–17). - **Habitats — N6(1)(a)(i): FAIL.** "no such legal mechanism is before me … there is no certainty that the payments could be secured" (DL ¶19); nutrient neutrality also unresolved (DL ¶21). - **Self-build / BNG.** "no legal mechanism is in place to secure the scheme as such. Accordingly, the BNG requirement would need to be met … the benefits of the proposal in providing a self-build dwelling are of limited weight only" (DL ¶22). ## Planning balance Development plan conflict given "significant weight" (DL ¶23). Then S3/S4: HO7 substantial weight "especially pertinent" at 2.55 years (DL ¶24); sustainable location weighs in favour (DL ¶26); against, conflicts with L2(1)(d)(i), L2(1)(d)(ii) and N6(1)(a)(i) (DL ¶27). "the benefits of the proposed development, would be substantially outweighed by the identified adverse effects … As such the presumption in favour of sustainable development would not apply" (DL ¶28). ## What made the difference The Framework's own garden-infill limb, L2(1)(d), was used as the yardstick against which harm was measured: failing both its street-scene and neighbour-amenity criteria, plus an N6 habitats "should be refused" policy (no s106), gave a clear S4 fail despite a severe supply shortfall. A signed SPA/nutrient s106, a larger or more regular plot, and a greater separation from the host house were each necessary to succeed. ## Transferable points - L2(1)(d) criteria (consistent with street scene; acceptable living standards for neighbours) are treated as the national decision-making tests for garden-plot infill under S4 (DL ¶27). - Local-plan density aims "would not over-ride the requirement for development to be sympathetic to local character" (DL ¶7). - Overbearing impact can be found without a breached numerical standard (DL ¶12). - A missing habitats-mitigation obligation engages N6(1)(a)(i) and weighs heavily in the S4 balance, even with a 2.55-year supply (DL ¶¶19, 27–28). - Self-build status not secured by a legal mechanism reduces the self-build benefit to limited weight and loses the BNG exemption (DL ¶22). - Drafting slip: Framework policies written as "H07", "S03", "S04" (DL ¶¶24–25). ## Policy findings - **L2(1)(d)(i): fail.** triangular, uncharacteristically small plot; not consistent with the overall street scene (DL 6-7, 27) - **L2(1)(d)(ii): fail.** side elevation ~12 m from No 40's rear windows, "substantially overbearing" — unacceptable living standards for neighbours (DL 12-13, 27) - **N6(1)(a)(i): fail.** no s106 securing Dorset Heathlands / Poole Harbour SPA mitigation; no nutrient neutrality statement (DL 19-21, 27) - **S4: fail.** benefits substantially outweighed; S3 presumption "would not apply" (DL 25, 28) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** cited as "H07"; "especially pertinent" with 2.55-yr supply (DL 24) - **TR3: benefit.** sustainable transport corridor, walking distance of buses to Poole/Bournemouth — weighs in favour (DL 26) - **DP3: pass.** not named; pitched-roof design, scale and materials acceptable (brick colour conditionable) (DL 8-9) - **Poole LP PP27, PP28, PP32, PP39: conflict (significant weight).** conflict given significant weight; plan as a whole conflict (DL 23) ## Key facts - Corner plot near cul-de-sac turning head; spacious suburban estate with generous detached plots - New dwelling in tapering rear part of steeply rising garden; removal of dense landscaped side boundary - ~9 m to flat-roof garage and ~12 m to two-storey side elevation from No 40's rear habitable windows - Supply 2.55 years (at 9 March 2026) - Self-build not secured by legal agreement, so self-build benefit limited and BNG exemption not shown - Previous 2025 appeal on the site dismissed (different design) - No reference to consulting parties on the 2026 Framework ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6006144 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/94bd195b-9fc6-488a-8c7e-a79cf1483491 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006144.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.