31A The Avenue, Poole (replacement house with 8 flats)

Decision

dismissed, 3 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: L J O'Brien

Authority

Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole (South West)

Appeal reference

6007779

Application reference

P/25/01216/FUL

Procedure

written representations

Development

Demolition of a 1990s house and erection of a 3-storey plus basement building of 8 apartments (net 7) in a verdant plot beside The Avenue Conservation Area

Homes

8

Site context

inside settlement, conservation area, TPO

Green Belt

No

Housing land supply

2.55 years

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

S4, L2(1)(d)(i), HE6(4), N3

Development plan policies

Poole Local Plan 2018 PP27, PP28, PP30, PP33, PP35, PP38, Shoreline Character Area SPG 2004, Parking Standards SPD 2021

Main issues

character and CA setting; protected trees; biodiversity; housing supply

Summary

An 8-flat block replacing a house in a sylvan plot next to Poole's The Avenue Conservation Area was refused, despite a 2.55-year supply and substantial weight to seven net homes. The inspector used the new L2 support for "additional units within residential curtilages" but held it to its "sensitive redevelopment … consistent with the overall street scene" qualifier. Harm to the conservation area's setting, uncertain effects on protected trees and an expired bat survey "would substantially outweigh" the benefits (the S4 test).

Issues and findings

• L2. "I have taken note of the aims of the Framework 2026 and its advice that substantial weight should be given to the benefits of additional housing, including the introduction of additional units within residential curtilage … However, the Framework is also clear that such additional housing must be through sensitive redevelopment which is consistent with the overall street scene" (DL ¶21).
• Character and CA setting: HARM. The block would "erode the verdant character of the site" (DL ¶18). The harm is "at the lower end of less than substantial. Notwithstanding this, the identified harm is of considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶22). That is the 2024 label, used under the 2026 Framework.
• Trees: FAIL. "it would not be appropriate to require such details through the use of planning conditions where doubt exists as to whether those conditions would feasible practically" (DL ¶35).
• Biodiversity: FAIL. The bat survey had expired and related to the earlier scheme (DL ¶42-43).
• Housing. Seven homes attract "substantial weight" given 2.55 years (DL ¶69-70), "moderated by the small scale of the proposal" in the heritage balance (DL ¶27).

Planning balance

First, the HE6(4) heritage balance, which failed (DL ¶27). Then an overall balance in S4 terms (within a settlement): "the substantial weight to be attributed to the harm to the designated heritage asset, combined with the scale of the other key harms I have identified, is such that … the adverse impacts would substantially outweigh the benefits of the scheme" (DL ¶74). The extant replacement-dwelling permission was a real fallback but less harmful (DL ¶61-64).

What made the difference

Form and trees, not the principle of flats. An apartment-block massing forward of the building line broke the green frontage, and a constrained, TPO-ringed site had no construction plan. A design closer to the approved single house in massing, with a full arboricultural method statement and a fresh bat survey, would have had a strong L2 and supply case.

Transferable points

• L2's substantial weight for extra units in residential curtilages depends on sensitive redevelopment consistent with the street scene (DL ¶21).
• Even at 2.55 years' supply, harm to a conservation area's setting plus unresolved tree and ecology issues can "substantially outweigh" 7 homes under S4 (DL ¶74).
• Where it is doubtful that tree protection is feasible on a constrained site, it cannot be left to conditions (DL ¶35). Expired bat surveys cannot be relied on (DL ¶43).
• A fallback permission helps only if the appeal scheme is no more harmful (DL ¶61-64).

Policy findings

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

Key facts

• Extant 2024 permission for a replacement single dwelling was a real fallback but materially less harmful (DL 8, 61-64)
• Revised parking and bin plans and a BEP accepted at appeal (DL 2-4)
• Dorset Heathlands and Poole Harbour mitigation offered by UU; appropriate assessment not needed as dismissed (DL 65-68, 75)
• Parties consulted on the 2026 Framework (DL 5)

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.