First & second floor extension with internal alterations

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 4 March 2026 by N Perrins MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 19 March 2026 Appeal Ref: 6003461 4 Bath Lane Cottages, Bath Lane, Fareham PO16 0DQ • 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 Reuben Wincott against the decision of Fareham Borough Council. • The application Ref is P/25/1029/FP. • The development proposed is first & second floor extension with internal alterations. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property and the Town Quay Conservation Area. Reasons 3. The appeal property forms part of a traditional terrace of dwellings on the southern side of Bath Lane. Although the roof ridge line appears to be as originally built, the properties in the terrace have undergone numerous modifications over the years to both their front and rear elevations. The character of the area is mainly residential with traditional buildings mixed with more modern developments such as the Swan Quay development, which is adjacent to the appeal site to the east. Opposite the site is Bath Lane Recreation Ground from which the terrace frontage is visible. 4. The appeal site is in the Town Quay Conservation Area (TQCA), which was extended in 2005 to include Bath Lane Recreation Ground and Bath Lane Cottages. Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires that special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area. 5. I understand from review of the Town Quay Character Assessment (2005), the special significance of the TQCA derives from the age and style of architecture, the way groups of buildings are arranged, the spaces between them and the historical association with seaborne trade that played a significant role in the development and growth of the area. The appeal site contributes to this as part of a mid-19th Century terrace that still appears, in terms of its overall form, scale and roof profile, as a cohesive and related group of Victorian properties. While there have been changes to the fenestration of the properties, the unaltered ridge line plays an Appeal Decision 6003461 2 important part in the terrace still retaining its appearance as a group of Victorian cottages. 6. The proposal would add a second-floor extension with a raised ridge height that would sit above the existing roofline of the terrace. While it would be set back from the ridge, its height above the roofline would still be visible from views to the terrace frontage from the park opposite and oblique views from Bath Lane. 7. While I acknowledge there have been fenestration changes to the frontage, the roofline is a defining and unaltered aspect of the terrace’s historic character as a visually coherent group of cottages. The height of the proposal would prominently disrupt this and unacceptably detract from the visual coherence of the terrace that currently exists. I am less concerned with the eaves height given that this aspect would be below the existing roof height and have less overall visual impact. However, this does not justify the harm that would arise from the overall height of the proposal projecting above the terrace’s existing ridgeline. 8. I acknowledge the appellant’s argument that the CA’s character is diverse, evolving, and integrates with nearby modern buildings like Swan Quay, which creates a backdrop of varied roof heights for the appeal site. However, the presence of varied roof heights nearby does not diminish the importance of preserving surviving key historic elements within the CA, such as the visual integrity of the terrace’s ridgeline in this case. I also accept that when viewed from the rear, the proposed extension would not appear overtly out of place due to the extent of alterations that have already taken place on adjacent properties. However, neither of these aspects outweigh the harm that would be caused to the TQCA from disrupting the visual coherence of the 19th Century terrace as is proposed. 9. I further note that none of the other alterations to the rear have exceeded the original ridgeline on the terrace. This includes the planning permission for No 6 Bath Lane Cottages1 which did not include any changes to the ridgeline. As such, the reference to the planning permission at No 6, any other changes to nearby properties or backdrop of varied roof heights do not justify the harm identified as they have a materially different, and lesser, impact on the special significance of the TQCA than would arise in this case. 10. Moreover, the proposal would be contrary to the guidance in the Fareham Borough Design Guidance SPD, which states that a successful extension will respect the existing character of the house and the street. As set out, the proposal would not achieve this by creating a discordant projection above the established ridgeline of the terrace that would be notably out of place with the consistent remaining roof form of the adjacent properties. 11. Overall and for the reasons stated, the proposed development would be a visually discordant and dominant addition that would unacceptably harm the appearance of the terrace as a cohesive group of 19th Century cottages. I find that this would result in harm to the special significance of the TQCA. The harm would amount to less than substantial harm at the lower end of the scale. 12. Paragraph 212 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) requires that great weight be given to the heritage asset’s conservation. Paragraph 215 requires that where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial 1 Planning Application Reference: P/24/0936/FP Appeal Decision 6003461 3 harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use. Similarly, Policy HE2 of the Fareham Local Plan 2037 (FLP) also requires public benefits to outweigh less than substantial harm. Paragraph 20 Reference ID: 18a-020-20190723 of Planning Practice Guidance makes clear that public benefits must be of a nature or scale to be benefit to the public at large and not just be a private benefit. 13. The benefits of the proposal are improved living space, supporting the long-term viable use of the property and economic activity during construction. The improved living space and long-term viability of the property are primarily private benefits rather than public ones that could outweigh the identified heritage harm. The public benefits from construction would be short lived and not sufficient to outweigh the permanent harm to the TQCA identified. 14. To conclude, the proposal would neither preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the TQCA and would result in less than substantial harm to its special significance. Whilst this impact would be at the lower end of less than substantial harm, there are no public benefits identified that would outweigh this harm. The proposal, therefore, does not accord with Policies D1, HE1 and HE2 of the FLP, which require development to be high quality and appropriately respond to local character, seek to conserve and enhance the historic environment and heritage assets in line with local and national policy, respond to the historic character of the area and surrounding buildings and requiring less than substantial harm to be weighed against public benefits. The proposal is also not consistent with the guidance contained in the Council’s Design Guide SPD or the heritage provisions of Chapter 16 of the Framework. Other Matters 15. I note 3rd party concerns were raised regarding the date of the property, the structural integrity of the terrace of properties, the accuracy of the submitted site plan boundary and potential for future sub-division. However, as I found the appeal to be unacceptable for other reasons I do not need to consider these other matters further in this decision. 16. I acknowledge that the appellant sought to discuss other design options with the Council, albeit they did not materialise into amended plans as the Council raised other concerns. As I am only able to assess what is in front of me, any revisions to address the height concerns identified would be a matter for the appellant to consider by submitting a fresh planning application. Conclusion 17. For the reasons given above and considering all matters raised, I conclude that the proposal does not accord with the development plan in terms of its impact on the special character and appearance of the Town Quay Conservation Area and the appeal is dismissed. N Perrins INSPECTOR