86 Alexandra Road, Poole

Decision

dismissed, 11 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: S Leonard

Authority

Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole (South West)

Appeal reference

6010619

Application reference

P/25/03787/FUL

Procedure

written representations

Development

Plot severance and erection of a contemporary 3-bed self-build house in rear garden backing onto Alexandra Park

Homes

1

Site context

inside settlement

Green Belt

No

Housing land supply

2.55 years

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

S4(2)(a)(ii), L2(1)(d)(ii), DP3(3), HE7(2)

Development plan policies

Poole Local Plan 2018 PP27, PP28, PP30, PP37

Main issues

character; non-designated heritage asset (park); living conditions; habitats mitigation

Summary

A contemporary flat-roofed self-build house on a severed rear-garden plot backing onto the locally listed Alexandra Park in Poole. Dismissed. The supply was only 2.55 years and L2(1)(d) gave substantial weight to a curtilage home. But the design was out of keeping and prominent from the park (DP3(3), HE7 harm to the NDHA setting). Living conditions for new and existing occupiers were also poor, which meant the scheme failed L2(1)(d)(ii) itself. The inspector relied on both S4(2)(a)(ii) (substantial adverse impact on L2(1)(d)) and S4(2)(c) (DP3 refusal policy).

Issues and findings

• Transition. Parties had the opportunity to comment (DL ¶2).
• Character: HARM. The building "would stand out as a stark and incongruous addition to this edge of parkland environment" (DL ¶18). Its build-to-plot ratio was comparable, but its layout was "an unduly cramped form of development" (DL ¶23).
• NDHA (HE7): HARM. "the park setting also comprises an integral part of the heritage asset's significance" (DL ¶32). The harm was less than substantial, so HE7(2) applied (DL ¶34).
• Living conditions. No cross-sections were supplied, so the inspector could not be satisfied on overlooking from the higher neighbouring decks and windows (DL ¶38-39). Daylight was acceptable (DL ¶40).
• Balance wording. DL ¶56 says "the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits", which is the pre-2026 tilted-balance formula. DL ¶58-59 then apply S4(2) correctly.
• S4(2). "Framework Policy S4 also sets out … where there is a substantial adverse impact in relation to … development within residential curtilages (Policy L2:(1)(d)) and where there is failure to comply with one of the national decision-making policies which state that development proposals should be refused … The appeal scheme fails to comply with Policy L2:(1)(d)(ii) … [and] Framework Policies DP3:(1) and DP3:(3)" (DL ¶58-59).

Planning balance

S4(1)/(2). Substantial weight to one curtilage home, self-build, and a 2.55-year supply (DL ¶54), against cumulative character, NDHA and living-condition harms judged "substantial" (DL ¶55). S4(2)(a)(ii) and (c) were both engaged.

What made the difference

A contemporary, flat-roofed and elevated design on a visually exposed park edge, and a failure to supply levels information. Both the character harm and the living-conditions failure fed into specific S4(2) triggers, which overrode the heavy housing shortfall.

Transferable points

• S4(2)(a)(ii) is engaged by a "substantial adverse impact" on the L2(1)(d) residential-curtilage criteria, including L2(1)(d)(ii) living standards (DL ¶58-59).
• In a garden-plot case, L2(1)(d) is both the source of the substantial weight and the test the scheme must meet (DL ¶54, 59).
• The setting of a locally listed park is part of its significance for HE7 (DL ¶32).
• Watch for old-formula slips ("significantly and demonstrably") in early post-August 2026 letters (DL ¶56).

Policy findings

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

Key facts

• Council supply 2.55 years (with 20% buffer)
• Plot already severed once (No 86A built); lawful development certificate for a garden home office treated as a limited-weight fallback
• DL 56 uses the old "significantly and demonstrably outweigh" formula before applying S4(2)

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.