# 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 (years):** 2.55
- **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
- **Tags:** housing-shortfall, heritage-harm-decisive, trees-tpo, evidence-gap, fallback, old-wording-slip, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework

## 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
- **L2(1)(d)(i): fail.** additional units within a residential curtilage must be sensitive redevelopment consistent with the street scene; block-like building breaks the verdant frontage (DL 13-21)
- **HE6(4): fail.** harm to setting of The Avenue CA at 'the lower end of less than substantial' but considerable importance and weight; benefits insufficient (DL 22-27)
- **N3: fail.** TPO trees: construction logistics and methodology unresolved on a constrained site; conditions inappropriate where feasibility doubtful (DL 30-38)
- **N2: fail.** bat survey expired and related to an earlier scheme; Circular 06/2005 para 99 (DL 42-45)
- **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** 7 net homes at a 2.55-year supply, 'moderated by the small scale' in the heritage balance (DL 25-27, 69-70)
- **S4: fail.** adverse impacts 'would substantially outweigh the benefits of the scheme' (DL 74)

## 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
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007779
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/f4bf2b2e-9939-4854-a302-4b481348a3ca

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007779.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.