- Decision
- dismissed, 4 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: B Plenty
- Authority
- Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole (South West)
- Appeal reference
- 6007161
- Application reference
- P/26/00262/FUL
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- One backland bungalow with driveway and parking for three cars in the rear garden of a detached house
- Homes
- 1
- Site context
- inside settlement
- Green Belt
- No
- Housing land supply
- 2.55 years
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- S4(1), L2(1)(d)(i), L2(1)(d)(ii), DP3(1)
- Development plan policies
- Bournemouth Core Strategy 2012 CS32, CS33, CS34, CS41, District Wide Local Plan 2002 saved 6.8
- Main issues
- character; neighbour living conditions; habitats sites; BNG
Summary
A backland bungalow in a Bournemouth rear garden, with 2.55 years' housing supply. Dismissed. It would break the open rear-garden core of a perimeter block and harm neighbours' outlook and privacy. The inspector expressly ran the S4 test: HO7 substantial weight to the home was "substantially outweighed" by conflict with L2(1)(d)(i) (street scene), L2(1)(d)(ii) (neighbours' living standards) and DP3(1) (context) (DL ¶27-31). BNG was also not evidenced.
Issues and findings
- Character. "due to its position and overall scale, the proposal would fundamentally erode the sense of spaciousness, and contrast with the existing pattern of development" (DL ¶7). The driveway "would present new views of the site from the highway interrupting the existing close-knit pattern" (DL ¶8).
- Neighbours. The bungalow "would be a sizeable and obtrusive feature ... resulting in a strong sense of enclosure" for No 22 (DL ¶13).
- Framework application. "the proposal would not be consistent with the overall streetscene and would not respond well to its context, in conflict with policy L2(1)(d)(i) and DP3(1) of the Framework. The scheme would also create poor living standards for existing residents ... as sought by the Framework's policy L2(1)(d)(ii)" (DL ¶30).
- BNG. "the application is not supported by a completed BNG Metric and habitat plan ... would not comply with the requirements of Schedule 7A" (DL ¶25).
Planning balance
S4(1): HO7 substantial weight to one home, plus accessibility and use of underused land, against L2(1)(d)(i) and (ii) and DP3(1) conflicts. "the benefits ... would be substantially outweighed by the identified adverse effects ... As such the presumption in favour of sustainable development would not apply" (DL ¶31). The letter treats S4 as the presumption and does not use the S4(2)(c) "should be refused" route.
What made the difference
The L2(1)(d) qualifying criteria. Garden development gets L2 support only if it is consistent with the street scene and keeps acceptable living standards for neighbours. Failing both, together with DP3(1), cleared the "substantially outweighed" bar even against a 2.55-year supply. A smaller dwelling not visible from the street and set away from No 22's narrow garden could plausibly have passed L2(1)(d)(i) through its "not visible from the street frontage" exception.
Transferable points
- L2(1)(d)(i) and (ii) work as refusal tests for garden or backland plots, and their failure can substantially outweigh HO7 substantial weight even with a severe shortfall (DL ¶27-31).
- DP3(1) conflict was weighed in the S4 balance, not used as a DP3(3) trump (DL ¶30-31).
- A new driveway that opens views into a rear-garden core counts against street-scene consistency (DL ¶8).
- Offers of BNG credits do not cure a missing metric and habitat plan (DL ¶24-25).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| L2(1)(d)(i) | fail | backland bungalow and new driveway would not be "consistent with the overall street scene"; tall, bulky feature in open rear gardens of a perimeter block (DL 5-11, 30) | |
| L2(1)(d)(ii) | fail | "unacceptable living standards for neighbours": strong sense of enclosure to narrow garden of No 22, cramped retained garden at No 20, overlooking of No 18 (DL 12-16, 30) | |
| DP3(1) | fail | "would not respond well to its context" — used inside the S4 balance, not as a DP3(3) standalone refusal (DL 30) | |
| HO7 | benefit | substantial | substantial weight to a home, "especially pertinent" with 2.55-year supply; accessible to Winton town centre and buses; underutilised land (DL 27-29) |
| S4(1) | fail | "benefits ... would be substantially outweighed by the identified adverse effects ... the presumption in favour of sustainable development would not apply" (DL 28, 31); S4(2) limbs not cited | |
| N2 | fail | no BNG metric or habitat plan despite credit offers — non-compliant with Schedule 7A (DL 22-25); code mapped by harvester | |
| N6 | neutral | SAMM UU submitted; AA not pursued because dismissed on other grounds (DL 17-21) |
Key facts
- Council supply 2.55 years (DL 27)
- Perimeter-block estate with open rear gardens; neighbour No 22 has a narrow garden and projects further back (DL 6, 13)
- Late habitat survey returned as out of time (DL 3)
Sources
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.