- Decision
- dismissed, 24 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: E Pickernell
- Authority
- Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole (South West)
- Appeal reference
- 6007434
- Application reference
- P/25/02928/FUL
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Three-storey block of three flats with cycle and bin store and parking, behind a commercial building with flats above
- Homes
- 3
- Site context
- inside settlement, PDL
- Green Belt
- No
- Housing land supply
- 2.55 years
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- S4, DP3(3), P3, L2(1)(d)(ii)
- Development plan policies
- Poole Local Plan 2018 PP27, PP29, PP33, Broadstone Neighbourhood Plan 2018 BP4
- Main issues
- living conditions of neighbours; living conditions of future occupiers; biodiversity net gain
Summary
A three-storey block of three flats behind a commercial building with flats above, in Broadstone. Rear bedroom windows would face the existing flats at about 9 m and 15.8 m, causing mutual overlooking. With supply at about 2.55 years, housing got substantial weight and L3 efficiency significant weight, but the privacy harm was "substantial and long lasting", engaged DP3(3), P3 and L2(1)(d)(ii), and substantially outweighed the benefits under S4. A commenced two-flat permission was a real fallback but less harmful. Dismissed.
Issues and findings
- Transition. "The Council and appellant were invited to make further comments" (DL ¶2).
- Neighbours' privacy: HARM. "At these distances and given the direct nature of the overlooking which would occur, the occupiers of these existing bedrooms would experience a loss of privacy" (DL ¶7). Curtains are no answer: "it is not reasonable to expect existing occupiers to have to adopt such measures" (DL ¶7).
- Future occupiers' privacy: HARM (DL ¶12, ¶14).
- BNG: no refusal. "it would generally be inappropriate for decision makers, when determining a planning application for a development subject to BNG, to refuse an application on the grounds that the biodiversity gain objective will not be met" (DL ¶18).
- Fallback: significant weight, but less harmful. "It therefore represents a realistic fallback position to which I attach significant weight" (DL ¶25).
- Plan weight. "These policies are consistent with Policy DP3 of the Framework ... I therefore attach significant weight to the conflict with these policies" (DL ¶32).
- DP3(3): FAIL. "I find conflict with DP3(1) and (2) because the proposal does not respond to its context through the arrangement of buildings or support the liveability of the development and because it would conflict with the design standards set out in the development plan" (DL ¶33).
Planning balance
S4. Substantial weight to three homes (HO7), significant weight to efficient use of PDL (L3), and L2's substantial weight to extra homes in existing plots, against substantial and long-lasting privacy harm. "the benefits of approving the development would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects" (DL ¶34).
What made the difference
Window-to-window distances of 9 m and 15.8 m with direct views between bedrooms. The fallback scheme had only two storeys, so the third storey's extra windows and extra flat were the decisive difference.
Transferable points
- Privacy harm to amenity engages DP3(3) through DP3(1) (arrangement of buildings) and DP3(2)(a) (liveability), and L2(1)(d)(ii) (DL ¶32–33).
- Amenity policies consistent with DP3, P3 and L2 keep significant weight (DL ¶32).
- BNG is not a refusal reason where the minimum Article 7 information is supplied; the gain plan is the mechanism (DL ¶18–19).
- A commenced older permission is a real fallback, but it does not help where the appeal scheme is materially more harmful (DL ¶25–26).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| P3 | fail | significant | direct overlooking between six rear bedroom windows and the flats in No 207 at about 9 m and 15.8 m; harm to existing and future occupiers "substantial and long lasting"; outlook acceptable (DL 5-14, 31-32) |
| L2(1)(d)(ii) | fail | significant | additional development within an existing plot must maintain acceptable living standards in terms of privacy (DL 32) |
| DP3(3) | fail | conflict with DP3(1) (arrangement of buildings) and DP3(2) liveability, and with plan design standards; DP3(3) quoted but clear justification not separately assessed (DL 33) | |
| Transitional(2) | accord | significant | PP27 and BP4 consistent with DP3, P3 and L2, so significant weight to the conflict (DL 32) |
| HO7 | benefit | substantial | three homes, supply about 2.55 years (DL 29) |
| L3 | benefit | significant | efficient use of PDL, density increase in an accessible location, plus construction benefits (DL 30) |
| BNG (Sch 7A TCPA) | pass | minimum Article 7 information supplied; whether the gain objective is met is for the Biodiversity Gain Plan, not a refusal reason (DL 16-20) | |
| S4 | fail | benefits substantially outweighed (DL 34) |
Key facts
- Extant 2017 permission for two flats (commenced, confirmed by 2026 certificate) is a realistic fallback given significant weight, but the appeal scheme adds two bedroom windows and a flat without adequate privacy (DL 24-26)
- No completed habitats obligation; appropriate assessment not needed as dismissed (DL 21-23)
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.