New detached garage

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 16 September 2025 by SE Hughes BA (Hons) PGDip MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 16 October 2025 Appeal Ref: APP/M1710/D/25/3365447 77 Links Lane, Rowlands Castle, Hampshire PO9 6AF • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr and Mrs Robin Hargreaves against the decision of East Hampshire District Council. • The application Ref is EHDC-24-0058-HSE. • The development proposed is a new detached garage. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a new detached garage at 77 Links Lane, Rowlands Castle, Hampshire PO9 6AF in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref EHDC-24-0058-HSE, and the plans and documents submitted with it, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing no. 24058/001P - Rev A. 3) The external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be constructed in the materials shown on drawing no. 24058/001P - Rev A and maintained as such in perpetuity. 4) The methods of working to provide protection for the adjacent Copper Beech (T1) shall be implemented in accordance with the Arboricultural Impact Assessment/Statements and Tree Protection Plan dated 19/09/2024. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 3. The appeal property is a large, detached house located in a residential street where properties of a similar size are set back on their plots with parking areas and gardens to the front. The property has a dual gated driveway entrance to the front with a mature Laurel hedge along its boundary with the highway. 4. Many of the properties in the street have double or triple garages positioned forward of the building line of the host dwelling and neighbouring properties. This includes a group of dwellings that I saw were under construction to the north. It also includes the neighbouring property 75 Links Lane, which the appeal development Appeal Decision APP/M1710/D/25/3365447 2 would flank. In this context the proposed introduction of a detached double garage to the front driveway of the appeal property would not be out of place, particularly as it would be located tight to the boundary, so would not interrupt the face of the property and would be offset by the established garden and the boundary hedge along the street frontage. 5. Whilst the proposed garage would project beyond the garage of 75 Links Lane, due to screening provided by a mature Copper Beech and existing vegetation, this misalignment would not be noticeable. 6. Even though it would be taller and bulkier than the full hipped garage of No 75, it would still look subservient to the host dwelling as there would be a clear stepping down in its roof height. Furthermore, finished in matching materials it would have a unified appearance. 7. With regards to the proposed dormers, whilst they would align with the main roof ridge and would be slightly elongated, the setback from the eaves and in from the sides and paired alignment with the garage doors would ensure that they would not be unduly prominent in front and side views. 8. I accept that there are some elements of the Council’s ‘Residential Extensions & Householder Development’ Supplementary Planning Document July 2018 with which the extension may not comply. However, for the reasons I have explained above, this does not alter my view that the garage’s design would complement the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the area. 9. For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the area. Accordingly, I find no conflict with Policy H9 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review; or Policy CP29 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Joint Core Strategy. These policies require ancillary detached buildings to be in-keeping with the scale and character of the property and its surroundings and to retain or enhance the landscape setting and be of an exemplary standard of design with a high-quality external appearance. Conditions 10. As suggested by the Council, to meet legislative requirements, a condition shall be imposed to address the period for commencement. I shall also impose conditions requiring compliance with plans, to provide certainty, and requiring the use of materials matching the host property as shown on the plans, in order to maintain the character and appearance of the property and the area. 11. In addition, given that the neighbouring Copper Beech is the subject of a Tree Preservation Order, I find that it is also necessary to attach a condition to ensure that the measures in the Arboricultural Impact Assessment/Statements and Tree Protection Plan are implemented during the course of development. Conclusion 12. For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed. SE Hughes INSPECTOR