- Decision
- dismissed, 29 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: C Cooper-Young
- Authority
- Dorset (South West)
- Appeal reference
- 6011565
- Application reference
- P/VOC/2026/01105
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- s73 variation of the approved-plans condition on P/FUL/2024/01770 (backland bungalow) to build a taller chalet bungalow with rooflights
- Homes
- 1
- Site context
- inside settlement
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- S4, L2(1)(d)(i), L2(1)(d)(ii)
- Development plan policies
- Christchurch and East Dorset Core Strategy 2014 HE2, Sturminster Marshall Neighbourhood Plan 2024 SMNP9, SMNP13
- Main issues
- character and appearance; neighbours' privacy
Summary
A non-determination s73 appeal to swap an approved backland bungalow for a taller chalet bungalow with rooflights in a 1950s estate in Sturminster Marshall. The inspector found the roof-heavy form discordant and the rooflights overlooking neighbours' gardens. Since permission for one dwelling already exists, the housing benefit was limited. Under S4, with L2(1)(d)(i) and (ii) cited, the benefits were substantially outweighed. Dismissed.
Issues and findings
- Transition. "I consulted both parties on the changes to the Framework" (DL ¶4).
- Character: HARM. "the development would represent a discordant and incongruous addition that would fail to respect the established character, scale and appearance of the surrounding built environment" (DL ¶10).
- Privacy: HARM. "the proposal would give rise to an unacceptable level of actual and perceived overlooking" (DL ¶16).
- Housing weight. "The proposal would not increase the number of dwellings delivered ... Consequently, only limited weight is afforded to the proposal's housing delivery benefits" (DL ¶20).
- S4 with L2(1)(d). "Where a development proposal is within a residential curtilage, Framework Policy L2(1)(d) (i) and (ii) require that proposals should be consistent with the overall street scene and character and maintain acceptable living standards for residents in terms of privacy" (DL ¶21).
Planning balance
S4. "the benefits of the proposal would be substantially outweighed by its adverse effects" (DL ¶22). DP3 is not cited; L2(1)(d) carries the design and amenity limbs.
What made the difference
The extant consent. With a dwelling already permitted, the only thing to weigh was the extra harm of the taller form, against almost no extra benefit.
Transferable points
- In an s73 variation, housing benefit is limited to what the change adds over the extant permission (DL ¶20).
- L2(1)(d)(i) and (ii) supply Framework tests for character and privacy in residential curtilages, in the S4 balance (DL ¶21).
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 | top-heavy chalet bungalow, visible above the frontage and from public viewpoints; discordant with the 1950s estate; SMNP9 and HE2 conflict (DL 10-12, 21) | |
| L2(1)(d)(ii) | fail | new rooflights overlook the gardens of Nos 14, 16 and 91A High Street (DL 13-17, 21) | |
| S4 | fail | extant consent already gives one dwelling, so limited housing weight; benefits substantially outweighed (DL 20-22) |
Key facts
- Non-determination appeal; Council would have refused on character and privacy (DL 3)
- Costs application by the appellant against the Council, decided separately (DL 2)
- Earlier NMA changed the operative description from bungalow to dwelling, so Finney does not bar the s73 (DL 18)
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.