Shop extension and frontage at 32 Southbourne Grove, Bournemouth

What was proposed

The retrospective application covered a small rear store extension and modifications to the existing shopfront.

“Description of Proposal 1. This retrospective application is for two distinct elements to an existing shop. Firstly, it is for a small rear extension for a store area. Secondly, it is for modifications to the shopfront of the building.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site was on a busy shopping parade beside an alleyway and another shop, at the edge of the Southbourne Grove Conservation Area.

“Description of Site and Surroundings 2. Southbourne Grove is a busy street flanked by parades of shops, cafes and other commercial premises in the west Southbourne area. It is within the Southbourne Grove Retail Centre. The development site marks the border of the Southbourne Grove Conservation Area (CA). The border for the Conservation Area is the west wall of the property.”

Officer report

Earlier works and applications

The frontage was operational by May 2025, after works had begun during an earlier ventilation application; previous permissions included a ventilation system and shopfront.

“Although this retrospective application was registered on the 11th July 2025, the present frontage was installed and operational by May 2025, according to Street View. The planning application registered on 22nd January 2025 (7-2025-3146-G) for a new ventilation system onsite established that works were well underway for the changing of the frontage.”

“Issue Date App No. Description Decision 30/06/2025 7-2025-3146-G Erection of kitchen ventilation system Grant 19/05/1975 7-1975-3146-D Use of premises as off-licence and installation of new shopfront Grant…”

Officer report

The main design concerns

Dark glazing created a dead frontage, while replacing double doors and a ramp with a narrow stepped entrance made access difficult or potentially impossible for some disabled users.

“A design which is maintains or improves vitality within district centres would be acceptable in principle and equally, a detrimental impact on vitality should be resisted, according to Policy CS9 of the Core Strategy (2012). The proposed darkened windows would reduce the vitality of the area. Furthermore, the design of the shopfront includes removing the previous double doors with a narrow recessed single door.”

“The addition of the step would make access for people with disabilities, such as wheelchair users, challenging and potentially not possible. The Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED), under S149 of the Equality Act 2010 requires that due regard be given to the need to, amongst others, advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it.”

Officer report

What consultees and neighbours said

The heritage officer criticised the design and materials, while all 43 objections raised concerns including access, drainage, construction quality, noise, overlooking and rodents.

“Consultations Consultee Date of Response Comments Conservation/ Heritage Officer 18/08/2025 The site is adjacent to the CA, which protects the early C20th terraces of Edwardian character shops. The site is an interwar single storey building, with works already commenced. These works are not deemed of scale to materially affect the setting of the CA. The street scene, regrettably, will not be improved by the design and the sigage would appear a retrograde step.”

“Permission has been sought after works have been completed. Removal of step free access impacts those with a disabilities ability to use the facility. Drainage The rear extension is poorly constructed with no guttering. The pipe drips water directly onto the ground. Suitable guttering should be installed for water run-off. Quality of Construction Concerned with the sub-standard construction of the rear extension and its compliance with Building Regulations.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A named objector spoke, the agent spoke on behalf of the applicant, and Councillor George Farquhar spoke objecting.

The committee vote

The committee unanimously voted to refuse permission in accordance with the officer recommendation.

“RESOLVED to REFUSE permission in accordance with the recommendation set out in the officer’s report…”

Minutes

The decision and reasons

Permission was refused for poor design, harm to disabled and mobility-impaired users, and conflict with design, shopfront and national planning requirements.

“REFUSE permission for the following reasons: Reasons 1. Poor Design 2. Harmful to the amenity of users who have a disability or issues with mobility. Not compliant with Policies CS9 and CS41 of the Core Strategy (2012), provisions of the Shopfronts Guide and Section 12 and other relevant provisions of the NPPF (2024).”

“In addition, the loss of the previous access ramp and creation of a stepped access would be contrary to The Equality Act 2010 which seeks to ensure people with protected characteristics have, where possible, equal opportunity in society. In this instance people with the protected characteristic of a disability, and specifically those with mobility problems, would be prejudiced against and no viable alternative or solution has been put forward by the Applicant.”

Officer report