Proposed part two-storey and part single-storey rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 9 March 2026 by Alison Fish BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 23 March 2026 Appeal Ref: 6002656 Oakdene, Hill House Hill, Liphook, Hampshire GU30 7PX • 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 Thomas Scholes against the decision of East Hampshire District Council. • The application Ref is EHDC-25-1153-HSE. • The development proposed is proposed part two-storey and part single-storey rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues are the effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring property, ‘Laburnum’ with regards to outlook and light. Reasons Character and appearance 3. The appeal site comprises a detached dwelling located in an area of sporadic residential development. Small clusters of dwellings line the road, and whilst they differ in design and materials, they are mostly set back from the road in generous plots. 4. The two-storey extension would almost replicate the size, scale, height and massing of the main dwelling, forming a valley at eaves level with the main roof of the dwelling. For this reason, the proposal, which also includes the addition of a single storey ‘orangery’ on the rear of the extension, cannot be described as subservient. 5. However, the dwelling sits in a large plot. It is set well back from the road and the interrelationship between the appeal site and neighbouring dwellings means that the proposed extension would not be highly visible. The two-storey extension would be located at the rear and would not exceed the ridge or eaves of the existing dwelling. Matching materials would also be used. As a result, the appeal proposal would respond appropriately to the existing dwelling and no harm would arise to the character and appearance of the host dwelling. 6. Accordingly, no conflict would arise with saved Policy HE2 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review, adopted 2006 (SLP), Policy CP29 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Joint Core Strategy, adopted 2014 (JCS) and Policy BL3 of the Bramshott and Liphook Neighbourhood Development Plan 2020-2040, Appeal Decision 6002656 2 made November 2024 (NDP) which seek high quality design which is appropriate and sympathetic to its setting in terms of scale, height and massing. Living conditions 7. The proposed extensions would be located close to the boundary with the neighbouring property, Laburnum. The increase in built development along the boundary would result in some shading of the neighbouring garden. However, taking into account the large size of the garden, and the small area affected, the proposal would not adversely affect the neighbours’ enjoyment of their garden to a harmful extent. 8. The appeal property is located to the south of the neighbouring property. I saw that Laburnum has a number of window openings on the elevations closest to the boundary. Whether or not the proposal would result in the loss of light to those windows is not determined solely with reference to the 45 degree rule set out in the Residential Extensions & Householder Development Supplementary Planning Document (July 2018). Whilst this is a useful ‘rule of thumb’ it must be considered alongside other factors on the ground, to determine the impact on a neighbouring property. 9. Whilst I have limited evidence before me to indicate what rooms the windows in the neighbouring serve, I also observed that there are few alternative openings on its east elevation. The proposed large gable end, by virtue of its proximity and height, would significantly enclose the space between the two properties and reduce the availability of light to the closest windows. 10. Furthermore, due to the scale and bulk of the two-storey rear extension and its projection along the side boundary, it would also have an unacceptably dominant presence. This would be overbearing and harmful to the outlook from those windows. The impact would not be reduced by the presence of vegetation on the boundary and the lack of objection from the neighbours does not alter my view. 11. The lack of objection in respect of highway safety, parking and ecology are neutral factors which weigh neither for nor against the proposal. 12. I conclude that conflict would arise with saved Policy HE2 of the SLP, Policies CP27 and CP29 of the JCS and Policy BL3 of the NDP which seek to ensure that development has an appropriate and sympathetic relationship with its surroundings, including adjoining buildings and prevents localised impacts such as excessive overshadowing, that can affect the general wellbeing of residents. Planning Balance and Conclusion 13. Whilst I have not identified harm in respect of the character and appearance of the area, I have found harm with regards to the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers. The proposed development would be contrary to the development plan as a whole and there are no material considerations, including the Framework that outweigh this conflict. Consequently, with reference to Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the appeal is dismissed. Alison Fish INSPECTOR