Demolition of outbuildings, side and rear extension, balconies, roof replacement, annexe, detached garage and general remodelling

https://www.gov.uk/planning -inspectorate Appeal Decision Site visit made on 5 November 2025 By K Reeves BA (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 18 November 2025 Appeal Ref: 6000544 192 Sea Front, Hayling Island, Hampshire PO11 9HR • 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 David & Tracey Baigent against the decision of Havant Borough Council. • The application Ref is APP/24/00953. • The development proposed is demolition of outbuildings, side and rear extension, balconies, roof replacement, annexe, detached garage and general remodelling. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matter 2. In the banner heading above, I have adopted the description of development set out in the Council’s decision notice, as the appellants confirmed their acceptance of the amended wording. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 4. The appeal site comprises a detached two storey dwelling with a lean-to single storey addition. It occupies a prominent position on Hayling Island’s seafront, with the existing building set noticeably forward of neighbouring properties. The street is characterised by detached dwellings of varied architectural styles, typically arranged within generous plots. 5. The proposed remodelling would introduce a two storey side extension and a mono-pitched roof to the main part of the dwelling, together with an increased eaves height and extensive glazing to the front elevation. These alterations would result in larger expanses of walling and glazing, clearly visible when travelling along the road in either direction. 6. I acknowledge the appellants’ argument that the reduction in ridge height of the main part of the dwelling, the removal of roof overhangs and the bay window, and the setting back of the side extension would help to moderate the increase in built form. It is also noted that the remodelled dwelling would occupy only 30% of the plot. Appeal Decision 6000544 https://www.gov.uk/planning -inspectorate 2 7. However, whilst these adjustments may temper certain aspects of the scheme, they do not offset the cumulative increase in massing above ground-floor level. The increased width of the dwelling and the larger expanses of walling would create façades of heightened scale and visual prominence, particularly when viewed from the west and east approaches. The retained forward siting of the building would continue to accentuate its prominence, and the overall composition would appear more dominant within its context. 8. The appellants contend that the separation distance to neighbouring properties is generous and that the design reflects other modern buildings nearby. However, the Havant Borough Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document 2011 (SPD) advises that extensions should remain subservient to the host building and avoid dominating the street scene. In this case, the combination of increased bulk and width would result in a visually incongruous and overbearing addition. 9. The use of contemporary design and materials is not, in itself, inappropriate, given the presence of other modern dwellings with generous glazing in the immediate vicinity. Nevertheless, the existence of nearby contemporary properties does not justify the increased massing of the appeal scheme. Those neighbouring buildings are generally set further back from the highway and occupy larger, more spacious plots, which serve to mitigate their visual impact and maintain a sense of openness. 10. For these reasons, the proposed development would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area. Consequently, the proposal conflicts with Policy CS16 of the Havant Borough Core Strategy 2011, which requires that all development achieves high-quality design that integrates with the characteristics of the locality, respects its context, and enhances visual amenity. Moreover, the proposal fails to accord with the guidance set out in the SPD, which supplements the policies of the development plan. Other Matter 11. The appellants have expressed dissatisfaction with the Council’s determination of the application, including concerns about how the proposal was assessed. Whilst I recognise these concerns, matters relating to the Council’s decision-making process fall outside the remit of this appeal. My decision is based solely on the planning merits of the scheme and the evidence before me. Conclusion 12. For the reasons given above, the proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Accordingly, the appeal should be dismissed. K Reeves INSPECTOR