Construction of first floor extension to existing bungalow to involve raising roof height to form two storey dwelling with pitched roof. Erection of a part two storey and part single storey side extension to western/northern elevations. To i nclude erection of 2.4m high wall and fence and alterations to existing doors and fenestration

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 2 April 2026 by Elizabeth Lawrence BTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 13 April 2026 Appeal Ref: 6005512 Wellspring Lodge, 16 Silchester Road, Tadley, RG26 3PX • 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 Ms C Clulow against the decision of Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council. • The application Ref is 25/01878/HSE. • The development proposed is described as construction of first floor extension to existing bungalow to involve raising roof height to form two storey dwelling with pitched roof. Erection of a part two storey and part single storey side extension to western/northern elevations. To i nclude erection of 2.4m high wall and fence and alterations to existing doors and fenestration. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of 18, 18a and 20 Silchester Road (Nos.18, 18a & 20), with particular regard to visual impact, privacy, and loss of daylight/sunlight. Reasons 3. Wellspring Lodge is located within a mixed residential and commercial area on the edge of the settlement. The numerous trees and hedges within and surrounding the residential area contribute to the verdant and suburban edge of settlement character and appearance of the area. 4. Wellspring Lodge occupies a backland position to the rear of Nos.18, 18a & 20, with access via a narrow drive between the side boundaries of Nos.14 & 18 Silchester Road. The appeal dwelling is single storey and orientated north/south, with its rear elevation some 6 metres from the northern boundary of the site. Currently there is a tall close boarded fence along this boundary and a mature Laurel hedge which separates the appeal site from the rear gardens and dwellings at Nos.18, 18a and 20. 5. Along the eastern boundary of the appeal site is a tall fence, with a tall mature mix of trees and shrubs. To the south of the appeal property is a new dwelling, ‘The Oasis’. Currently there are no boundary fences or hedges between that dwelling and the appeal property. With the proposal a row of Hornbeam/Lelandii trees would be planted along this and adjacent to part of the boundary between the Appeal Decision 6005512 2 access track and the main garden area to Wellspring Lodge. A 2.4 metre high wall is also proposed along part of the boundary with the access drive. 6. In 2013 planning permission was granted for the erection of side extensions and the conversion of the loft to living accommodation. The approved scheme included raising the ridge height of the existing dwelling and constructing four dormers and a rooflight on the north facing roof slope and four dormers in the south facing roof slope. The north facing dormers served two bedrooms, a bathroom, and a stairwell and the rooflight served a shower room. The south facing dormers served three bedrooms and a bathroom. 7. The appellant has stated that the 2013 permission remains extant, and I note that a previous Inspector commented in 2022 that he understood that the 2013 permission was extant at that time. However, the information provided by the council in their delegated report is conflicting. When dealing with the character of the area the report refers to the permission as extant, although when dealing with the impact on Nos. 18,18a and 20 the delegated report states that there was no evidence to confirm that the permission was implemented and that there was no lawful development certificate. 8. Accordingly, whilst the 2013 decision is a material consideration in the consideration of this appeal, the absence of evidence to demonstrate what and when works associated with the commencement if the development took place reduces the weight I can give to it. 9. Amongst other things policy EM10 of the Basingstoke and Dean Local Plan 2011- 2029 (LP) seeks to ensure that new development provides a high quality of amenity for occupants of developments and neighbouring properties, having regard to such issues as overlooking, access to natural light, outlook, and amenity space, in accordance with the Design and Sustainability SPD. 10. The Basingstoke and Deane Supplementary Planning Document 2018 (SPD) is consistent with this. Collectively and amongst other things, design principles RA3, RA5, RA6 and RA7 advise that the minimum depth of back gardens is 10 metres and the minimum back-to-back distance for two storey dwellings is 20 metres. New housing development should ensure that the privacy of neighbouring properties is protected and that a suitable and pleasant outlook and level of natural light for neighbouring properties is provided. The general text in section 10 clarifies that variations to the requirements set out in the design principles, may be permitted where justified. Regarding daylight and sunlight within rooms it refers to the 25⁰ and 45⁰ rules and that shadowing of garden areas should be kept to a minimum. 11. Paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (the Framework) similarly states that new developments should function well and add to the overall quality of the area. They should deliver a high standard of amenity for existing and future users. Collectively, paragraphs 11, 124 and 135 of the Framework encourage sustainable forms of development and making full and effective use of existing sites. Paragraph 131 of the Framework states that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development. It creates better places in which to live and helps make development more acceptable to communities. 12. The proposed resultant extended dwelling would be some 7.8 metres in height and would project above the northern boundary fence and adjacent Laurel hedge. This Appeal Decision 6005512 3 Laurel hedge is not dense and there are clear views through gaps in the foliage and branches towards the adjacent properties. 13. Due to their close proximity to the boundary with Nos.18, 18a & 20, together with their combined length, width and height above ground level, the proposed first floor windows on the north elevation of the host dwelling would provide an open outlook from the rooms they serve. They would facilitate wide views both through and over the existing Laurel Hedge, into the rear gardens and towards the dwellings at Nos. 18, 19a & 20. Similarly, from these properties there would be clear views into the rooms served by the proposed large windows. Notwithstanding the generous back- to-back distances between the dwellings at Nos.18, 18a & 20 and the appeal dwelling, due to the proximity of the appeal dwelling to the boundary with Nos.18, 18a & 20 the level of actual and perceived overlooking would be unreasonable and intrusive. 14. The appellant has suggested that the retention of the boundary hedge could be made the subject of a condition. As stated by the council, the retention of the Laurel hedge could not be relied on in the long term. If it died or was removed the level of overlooking would intensify. Any new replacement hedge would need to be both high and dense which could take years to fully establish and could be difficult to maintain. As such it is not something that could be relied upon to protect the living conditions of the occupiers of the adjacent dwellings. 15. The appellant has stated that the north facing windows could be obscure glazed and non-opening. This would be appropriate for the proposed en-suite and wardrobe, although ideally the en-suite would benefit from natural ventilation. It would be unusual for occupiers to leave large clear glazed windows within bathrooms and wardrobes clear glazed, where they are close to and in full view from neighbouring properties. This is a matter that could be satisfactorily secured through the imposition of conditions. Subject to such conditions, the bathroom and wardrobe windows would not result in a loss of privacy for the occupiers of Nos.18, 18a & 20. 16. The use of obscure glazing and fixed shut windows would however result in an unacceptably poor living environment within the proposed north facing bedroom. If clear glazed there would be direct views from the bedroom window into the rear garden and towards the rear elevation of the dwelling at No.18a. It would be result in an unacceptable level of actual and perceived over-looking that would be visually intrusive and oppressive. It would materially and unacceptably harm the living conditions of the occupiers of that property. As such it is not something that could reasonably be secured through the imposition of conditions. 17. Conversely, due to the siting of the catslide roof the outlook from this bedroom window would be partially obscured from the rear garden and dwelling at No.18. It would also be set at an oblique angle and some distance from No.20. Accordingly, the proposed openable and clear glazed bedroom window would not result in an unacceptable loss of privacy for the occupiers of Nos,18 & 20. 18. By comparison, the north facing bedrooms in the 2013 scheme were served by dormer windows with deep cheeks, which were set within the room skeilings and slightly recessed within the roof slope. As such, the outlook from them would have been more restricted and not directly comparable to the proposed large openings. Whilst not labelled, the approved bathroom windows were clearly shown as being Appeal Decision 6005512 4 obscure glazed, which would protect the privacy of the occupiers of Wellspring Lodge. Whilst the use of obscure glazing was not conditioned, it would be likely that any occupier would want to achieve a good level of privacy within their bathrooms. 19. For these reasons I find that even if the 2013 scheme is still extant it’s impact on the living conditions of Nos.18, 18a & 20 would be acceptable. Conversely, the proposal would cause unacceptable harm to the living conditions of occupiers of No.18a. Further, this harm would clearly outweigh the benefits for the appellant and their family that would result from the additional accommodation. 20. Concern has been expressed regarding the height of the proposed extension and its impact on the outlook from Nos.18, 18a and 20. The proposed extension would be clearly visible from these properties, and I acknowledge that the appeal dwelling is sited close to their rear boundaries. Notwithstanding this, the immediate area is characterised by a diverse range of dwellings and Nos.18, 18a & 20 benefit from generous sized rear gardens with a favourable southerly aspect. As such the extended dwelling would not have an overbearing impact on the outlook from these dwellings and their gardens would continue to receive good levels of daylight and sunlight. 21. The southern elevation of the prosed extension includes three full height patio doors and Juliet balconies, which face towards the front elevation of ‘The Oasis’. The two dwellings are sited some 24 metres from each other and the main garden area to ‘The Oasis’ is to the rear of that property. Also, they would be separated by the deep garden to Wellspring Lodge, which is sited to the north of ‘The Oasis’. For these reasons the proposed extension would not have a materially adverse impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of ‘The Oasis’. 22. Finally, the appeal property sits at right angles and the proposed front and rear first floor windows would be at an oblique angle to the adjacent dwellings which front onto Broad Halfpenny Lane. Having regard to this, together with the distance between the proposed windows and the adjacent properties in Broad Halfpenny Lane, the proposal would not have a materially harmful impact on the living conditions of their occupiers due to visual impact or loss of privacy. 23. I conclude on the main issue that the proposed extension would materially and unacceptably harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No.18a due to loss of privacy. Accordingly, the proposal conflicts with LP Policy EM10, the SPD and paragraphs 11 and 135 of the Framework. Other matters 24. The existing dwelling is of no particular architectural merit and is located in a mixed residential area. The design of the proposed extensions would be in keeping with ’The Oasis’ and would be largely screened from the street scene. Accordingly, subject to adherence to the submitted drawings and the use of the external materials set out in the application form, the proposed extensions would visually blend in satisfactorily with the surrounding area. 25. The proposal includes the provision of 2.4 metre high walls and fencing along the eastern side of the existing access track, although no drawings showing their appearance are provided. Concern has been expressed that the proposed walls and fences would have an overbearing impact on the existing access drive. This Appeal Decision 6005512 5 matter is not addressed in the council’s delegated report, although it does refer to concerns relating to the ownership of the access track. 26. Having regard to the enclosed nature of the northern part of the track I consider that, due to their height, the proposed walls and fencing could have an unduly enclosing and oppressive effect on the access track leading to ‘The Oasis’. However, without precise details of their appearance and the agreed boundary to the access track, it is not possible to make an accurate assessment. This adds to my concerns relating to the main issue in this appeal. 27. Had I found in favour of the appellant on the main issue, this is a matter upon which I would have sought further information from the main and interested parties. Conclusion 28. Whilst I have found in favour of the appellant on some points and taken into account all other matters raised, the conclusion on the main issue amounts to a compelling reason for dismissing this appeal. Elizabeth Lawrence INSPECTOR