Plans for up to 115 Poole flats have been dismissed on appeal after an Inspector found substantial harm from the design, living conditions and unresolved drainage strategy. E Pickernell issued the decision on 15th October 2026. The proposal concerned Park Place, at the junction of North Road and Commercial Road in Poole, Dorset.
Primetower Property Group sought outline planning permission for two apartment blocks, built in phases after demolition of the existing building. Access, appearance, layout and scale were being decided, with landscaping left for later consideration. The decision therefore examined the shape and arrangement of the buildings, rather than simply whether housing was suitable in principle.
I would not read the Poole flats outcome as a rejection of town-centre housing. The Inspector gave substantial weight to new homes and the effective use of a previously developed site. The problem was that those benefits did not outweigh the specific harms found here, including poor light and outlook for some future residents.
Why the Poole flats design was rejected
The site sits between smaller residential buildings along North Road and larger commercial, civic and residential buildings nearby. Pickernell described it as a point of transition in the size and scale of development. That made the relationship between the proposed blocks and their neighbours an important part of the assessment.
Block B included a lower section next to an existing building on Commercial Road. However, the Inspector found that this section was too narrow to soften the change in height. The full-height building would remain apparent nearby, producing an abrupt transition. Its depth, bulk and repetitive elevations would reinforce its imposing appearance.
The Poole flats layout would also provide two vehicle accesses from North Road, serving external and undercroft parking. Although landscaping details were reserved, the layout left limited space to soften the hard surfacing and parked cars. The Inspector found that arrangement stark and discordant beside the more domestic character of North Road.
Nearby large buildings did not settle the issue in the developer’s favour. The Inspector considered that many had more articulation, narrower footprints or larger plots, and less direct contact with smaller buildings. Comparing height alone would have missed the differences which affected how the proposed development would be experienced.
Light and outlook for residents and neighbours
Some flats in Block A would look into a recessed courtyard, with opposing walls and Block B limiting the view beyond. Other bedrooms would face a nearby blank wall. Pickernell found unacceptable enclosure and poor outlook, with some rooms unlikely to receive appropriate levels of light.
Recessed areas in Block B created similar difficulties. High walls alongside windows and the proximity of Block A would affect outlook. The Inspector distinguished another approved Bournemouth development because its courtyard would be less enclosed and include landscaping. An approval elsewhere did not demonstrate that these particular rooms would be satisfactory.
The Poole flats proposal also affected existing homes on North Road. Privacy was not found to suffer significantly, but the scale of Block B and its north-facing balconies would dominate the outlook from rear windows. The Inspector found this relationship overbearing and oppressive.
For anyone designing a dense scheme, I would look at these findings together. The space between buildings has to work for the people inside both the new and existing homes. A layout can avoid direct overlooking and still fail because of enclosure, poor light or a dominating building outside a window.
A late drainage redesign could not rescue the appeal
At the final comments stage, the developer submitted a drainage technical note following additional investigations. It proposed an infiltration-led approach, including underground tanks and permeable paving, instead of discharge into the public sewer network. That was a substantial change to the drainage strategy originally assessed by the council.
Pickernell declined to consider the revised scheme because it had arrived late and had not been consulted on. The decision states: “The appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme”. Interested parties would otherwise lose their opportunity to comment on the change.
The original strategy had assumed ground conditions were unsuitable for infiltration without infiltration tests having been carried out. The Inspector found that suitable drainage had not been adequately demonstrated. Further work had taken place, but it did not resolve the appeal when the substantially revised design could not fairly be considered.
The Poole flats refusal therefore carries a practical procedural lesson. I would establish the drainage approach early enough for it to shape the layout and receive proper scrutiny. Evidence submitted at appeal is not automatically accepted where it effectively changes the development that other parties have considered.
Housing benefits, biodiversity and the earlier permission
The council’s housing land supply was said to be 2.55 years. The Inspector recognised the significant shortfall and gave substantial weight to 115 new homes, reuse of previously developed land and a location with good access to services and public transport. Construction and residents’ spending added further benefits.
Some disputed matters were resolved favourably to the developer. Security could be addressed through lighting, management and surveillance. Biodiversity net gain matters could be dealt with through the statutory biodiversity gain plan process. The decision did not find that every original refusal reason remained a barrier.
An earlier permission for 126 assisted-living apartments was also considered. The appellant said it remained available, but Pickernell found it materially different. Its more articulated form, lower sections, depth and relationship with neighbouring homes would produce less harm. That fallback did not justify approving the replacement scheme.
Full costs application also refused
The separate costs decision refused Primetower’s application for a full award against the council. An officer report had mistakenly described the earlier approved use as ordinary housing rather than residential care, but the Inspector found that housing benefits had still been recognised and the council had substantiated its design concerns.
The Poole flats appeal, reference 6006741 and application P/25/02304/OUT, ends without permission for this scheme and without the requested costs award. The full appeal decision explains the balance. Our planning appeals guide provides background on the process, but the operative outcome here is the dismissal of this particular two-block proposal.
0 Comments