Hip to gable rear roof extension, side dormers and elevational alterations

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 26 January 2026 by Laura Cuthbert BA(Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 29 January 2026 Appeal Ref: 6001434 Heatherbank, 1 Beechwood Close, Chandler's Ford SO53 5PB  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 I Auger against the decision of Test Valley Borough Council.  The application Ref is 25/01662/FULLS.  The development proposed is Hip to gable rear roof extension, side dormers and elevational alterations. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Application for costs 2. An application for costs was made by Mr and Mrs I Auger against Test Valley Borough Council. This application is the subject of a separate Decision. Main Issues 3. The main issues are the effect of the proposal on:  the character and appearance of the area; and  the living conditions of existing occupants at 3 Beechwood Close, in particular regard to outlook and privacy. Reasons Character and Appearance 4. The appeal site comprises a detached dormer bungalow located within a predominantly residential area. The surrounding streetscene is characterised by a mix of detached two‑storey dwellings and dormer bungalows, some of which have been extended or altered over time. While this variety forms part of the established character of the area, the appeal property presently comprises an unobtrusive dormer bungalow within the streetscene. Its existing scale, form and siting sit comfortably alongside neighbouring development, and it makes a positive contribution to the overall character and appearance of the area. 5. The proposed roof alterations, by reason of their overall scale, massing and siting, would result in a bulky and incongruous addition that would dominate the existing dwelling. The design, which incorporates dormers that extend across the original roof form as well as on to the enlarged hip‑to‑gable roof, would fail to complement the proportions of the host building. Rather than appearing as a subservient and Appeal Decision 6001434 2 proportionate addition, as claimed by the appellant, the proposal would erode the simple form of the bungalow and result in an unduly heavy and visually intrusive roof structure. Consequently, the proposal would be of poor design quality and would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the area. 6. Owing to their scale, positioning, proportions and detailing, the dormers would be unduly prominent and visible within the streetscene and would fail to integrate satisfactorily with the host dwelling or its surroundings. The detailed design of the side dormers, including their differing roof pitch, lack of side windows and with only a limited number of rooflights to break up the roof slope, would further accentuate their visual prominence and reinforce the inappropriateness of an overly dominant and poorly designed roof extension. As a result, the proposal would represent a poorly designed, disproportionate and unsympathetic addition to the appeal site, and would fail to respect or complement the character and appearance of the area. 7. Although the proposal would not increase the ridge height, would retain the existing footprint of the bungalow, and would only increase the floor area by less than 10%, as set out by the appellant, the formation of a full gable end and associated roof works including the two side dormers would nonetheless significantly and detrimentally alter the established roof form and massing of the dwelling. The fact that the proposal would be located to the rear does not negate its effect on the overall form of the building. Furthermore, due to its scale and design, notably the side dormers, rather than having limited visibility as claimed by the appellant, it would still be clearly read from public vantage points. 8. I note the use of matching materials. However, this alone cannot overcome concerns relating to scale, form and siting. The appellant sets out that the aim of the Ampfield Village Design Statement is to ‘promote and encourage good design… recognising the important role design plays in sustaining local character’. The Council advises that the design statement also recognises the role design plays in sustaining harmony. However, whilst the appellant considers that the proposal is consistent with these aims and objectives, for the reasons set out above, I am not persuaded that the proposal would be a proportionate and subservient addition. It would therefore fail to sustain harmony and local character. 9. I have considered the numerous examples cited by the appellant1, who sets out that ‘a review of local properties indicates that around 37 out of 79 properties across both streets include dormers visible from the public realm’. 10. The appellant notably refers to a recent permission at 7 Beechwood Close2, which they state ‘was granted approval in 2025 for a roof lift and new dormers to the front and rear elevations’. However, no plans or decision documents have been provided to demonstrate the scale, design or overall context of that scheme. Moreover, my site visit confirmed that this permission has yet to be implemented. In the absence of any substantive information, I am therefore unable to make a meaningful comparison between what was approved at No 7 and the proposal before me at No 1. As such, this scheme carries limited weight in favour of the appeal. 11. I noted the presence of dormers at the neighbouring property, 3 Beechwood Close. These take the form of well‑proportioned pitched‑roof dormers positioned on the front and rear roof slopes. I also observed a two‑storey rear extension with a 1 Including 7, 14,18, 20, 22 & 24 Beechwood Crescent and 5, 8, 38, 40 Beechwood Close 2 Ref. 25/01454/FULLS Appeal Decision 6001434 3 balcony together with a ground‑floor infill extension. However, I have not been provided with the details of any associated planning permission for these works. While they demonstrate that No 3 has been altered over time, the form, scale and design of those additions are materially different to the proposal before me. Accordingly, they do not provide a compelling precedent in support of the appeal scheme. 12. The appellant also refers to 34 Beechwood Crescent, noting that this property features what they describe as larger or more visually prominent roof alterations visible from public highways, and to 40 Beechwood Crescent, which they state has dominant roof additions to the rear. However, I have not been provided with any plans or relevant planning permissions for either example. On the limited information before me, I cannot conclude that the circumstances at No 34 or No 40 are directly comparable to the appeal proposal or provide meaningful justification for the design, scale or form of the development now proposed. 13. Nevertheless, the presence of other roof alterations in the area does not, in itself, justify the form of development proposed. While I have been provided with photographs and the locations of these dormers, I have no detailed evidence of the planning history or decision-making context associated with them. The circumstances of each proposal are likely to differ and from the limited information available, the cited properties appear to vary materially in their roof form, scale, siting and design. My assessment must be based on the merits of the proposal before me, and I have found harm for the reasons set out above. Accordingly, I am not persuaded that the examples relied upon would be directly comparable to the scheme at No 1 and would not indicate that the appeal proposal would be acceptable. 14. Therefore, for the reasons set out above, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area. It would be contrary to Policy E1 of the Test Valley Borough Revised Local Plan DPD (2016) (the Local Plan) which states that Development will be permitted if it is of high quality in terms of design and local distinctiveness. To achieve this development should, amongst other things, integrate, respect and complement the character of the area in which the development is located in terms of layout, appearance, scale, materials and building styles. Development will not be permitted if it is of poor design and fails to improve the character, function and quality of the area. Living Conditions 15. The appeal site lies within a built‑up residential area where properties sit in close proximity to one another, resulting in a strong interrelationship between neighbouring dwellings. The property most directly affected would be 3 Beechwood Close which is located immediately to the west of the appeal site and sits very close to No 1, with the occupants of No 3 stating that the separation distance reduces to approximately 15 inches at its narrowest point. 16. The rear elevation of No 3 contains a ground‑floor living room window positioned immediately adjacent to the shared boundary with No 1, along with kitchen windows that also face towards the appeal property. The rear elevation of No 1 also projects further back than that of No 3. In addition, No 3 benefits from a slightly raised terrace immediately to the rear of the dwelling, which provides the occupants with an outdoor sitting area. Appeal Decision 6001434 4 17. Although the ridge height of the bungalow would remain unchanged, the combined scale, massing and siting of the hip‑to‑gable extension and the side dormers would introduce a substantial amount of additional built form in very close proximity to No 3. The appellant states that the depth of the dormers has been reduced to ‘minimise their impact’. However, even with this supposed reduction, the increased bulk would still be readily perceived from No 3 and would visually dominate views from its rear‑facing windows. As a result, the proposal would give rise to an unacceptably overbearing effect on the outlook from the ground‑floor living room and kitchen windows at No 3, as well as from the adjoining outdoor sitting area. 18. With regard to privacy, the Council’s concern appears to focus on the first-floor bedroom window within the hip-to-gable extension. While this would introduce some degree of overlooking towards No 3, there is already a window within the existing rear dormer that provides comparable views. As the appellant notes, the replacement gable-end window would be similar in size and orientation to the existing opening. I also note that it would be positioned approximately 2 metres further into the rear garden of No 1, producing a more oblique relationship with No 3. Taking these factors into account, I am satisfied that the proposal would not result in a materially greater level of overlooking than currently exists. Accordingly, the privacy enjoyed by the occupants of No 3 would not be materially harmed. 19. The appellant has submitted a ‘solar tracking analysis’ to demonstrate the proposal’s effect on daylight and sunlight. However, the Council has not alleged that the development would give rise to any material loss of daylight or sunlight to neighbouring properties, and nothing before me leads me to reach a different conclusion. Nonetheless, the absence of harm in this respect does not alter my findings above in regard to the harmful effect of the proposal on the outlook from No 3. 20. Therefore, for the reasons set out above, whilst the privacy of the occupants of 3 Beechwood Close would be preserved, the proposal would result in a materially harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupants of No 3, in respect of outlook. The proposal would be in conflict with Policy LHW4 of the Local Plan which states that development will be permitted provided that it provides for the privacy and amenity of its occupants and those of neighbouring properties. Conclusion 21. The appeal scheme would conflict with the development plan. There are no material considerations, including the approach of the Framework, worthy of sufficient weight, that would indicate a decision other than in accordance therewith. The appeal is therefore dismissed. Laura Cuthbert INSPECTOR