External alterations to include a front extension, a rear balcony, a first floor side extension and a second floor extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 25 November 2022 by S Poole BA(Hons) DipArch MPhil MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 22 December 2022 Appeal Ref: APP/A1720/D/22/3304445 14 Mariners Way, Warsash, Southampton SO31 9FN • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr Ben Jones against the decision of the Fareham Borough Council. • The application Ref P/22/0768/FP, dated 27 May 2022, was refused by notice dated 15 July 2022. • The development proposed is described as external alterations to include a front extension, a rear balcony, a first floor side extension and a second floor extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues are the effects of the proposals on: (i) the character and appearance of the surrounding area, and (ii) the living conditions of the occupiers of 12 and 16 Mariners Way, with particular regard to privacy. Reasons Character and Appearance 3. The appeal property is a 2-storey detached house with a pitched roof and an attached garage to the side. It is located in a residential cul-de-sac and, together with the properties to either side and on the opposite side of the road, forms part of a group of houses is similar age, appearance and design. This gives this portion of Mariners Way a relatively hight degree of visual unity, a matter to which I attach significant weight. I note that there are houses in the road and surrounding area that have been altered and, in some cases, comprehensively re-modelled. However, these dwellings generally reflect the scale of their neighbours. 4. The appeal proposal would comprise a radical re-modelling of the appeal property to create a flat-roofed, 3-storey house with a contemporary appearance. Whilst I recognise that the design approach would be similar to that adopted nearby, the inclusion of a third storey would result in a height, scale and form of development that would be overly prominent and incongruous in the context of 2-storey houses with pitched roofs. Appeal Decision APP/A1720/D/22/3304445 2 5. Due to its height, scale and form I therefore conclude that the proposal would have an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of its surroundings. As such the proposal fails to accord with Policy CS17 of the Fareham Borough Core Strategy 2011 which, amongst other matters, seeks to ensure that new development is of high-quality design and respects the key characteristics of the area including scale, form, spaciousness and built form. Living Conditions 6. The appeal proposal would include a large terrace at first floor level, that would occupy the full-width of the rear of the property, and a balcony and roof garden at second floor level. These amenity areas would extend close to the side boundaries of the appeal site and therefore enable elevated views into neighbours’ gardens, including the spaces close to the rear elevations where some level of privacy is a reasonable expectation. 7. I recognise that some level of overlooking is inevitable in residential areas comprising 2-storey houses. However, due to their size, elevated siting and closeness to the side boundaries, the rear terrace and balcony would result in a more overt and oppressive degree of overlooking and therefore loss of privacy for neighbouring property occupiers. 8. For this reason I conclude that the proposal would have an unacceptable effect on the living conditions of occupiers of 12 and 16 Mariners Way. It therefore fails to comply with Policy DSP3 of the Fareham Local Plan Part 2: Development Sites and Policies (2015). This policy states that development proposals should ensure that there will be no unacceptable adverse impact upon living conditions on the site or neighbouring development, by way of the loss of sunlight, daylight, outlook and/or privacy. Conclusion 9. For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should fail. S Poole INSPECTOR