Single storey rear extension to extend ground floor wc and create a dining space

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 16 April 2026 by K Crutchfield BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 15 May 2026 Appeal Ref: 6005873 22 Jubilee Road, Waterlooville, Hampshire PO7 7RD • 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 Kane Wade against the decision of Havant Borough Council. • The application Ref is APP/25/00804. • The development proposed is single storey rear extension to extend ground floor wc and create a dining space. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupants of 24 Jubilee Road, with particular reference to outlook, daylight and sunlight. Reasons 3. Jubilee Road is located in an urban residential area; nos 22 and 24 are semi- detached two-storey properties. The rear elevations of the properties are north facing, and no 22 is set back slightly from the ground-floor rear elevation of no 24. There are patio windows on the rear elevation of no 24 located close to the common boundary. 4. The Havant Borough Council Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2011) (Design Guide), seeks to ensure development does not have an adverse effect on neighbouring properties. Paragraph 5.42 of the Design Guide indicates single storey rear extensions should be a maximum of 3m from the rear wall of the existing house and no closer than 1m to neighbouring properties. 5. The proposed extension would be approximately 7m deep and would be very close to the common boundary, within 1m of no 24. It would be considerably taller than the boundary fence and would extend significantly beyond no 24’s rear elevation. Therefore, the proposed extension would appear visually prominent and overbearing from the rear garden and rear facing rooms of no 24 and would have a harmful effect on outlook. 6. The proposed extension would conflict with the standards in the Design Guide and, by virtue of the combined impact of its depth, proximity and height would unacceptably affect the outlook from the rear garden and rear facing rooms of no 24. Appeal Decision 6005873 2 7. Given the north facing orientation of the rear elevations of nos 22 and 24, the small set back of the patio windows at no 24 from the common boundary, and the proposed flat roof form of the extension, the impact on daylight and sunlight to the patio windows would not be significant, and would not result in an unacceptable loss of daylight or sunlight to the occupants of this neighbouring property. 8. Nevertheless, I conclude that the proposed development would result in unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupants of no 24, through its adverse effect on outlook. As such, it would conflict with Policy CS16 of the Havant Borough Core Strategy (2011). This policy seeks, amongst other things, that development does not cause unacceptable harm to the amenity of neighbours through outlook. Other Matters 9. The appellant asserts that there are other similar rear extensions in the surrounding area. However, details of these have not been provided, and therefore I cannot be certain they are comparable to the appeal before me. 10. The appellant suggests no objections were raised by neighbours. However, this neither negates nor outweighs the conflict with the development plan which I have identified above. Conclusion 11. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposal would conflict with the development plan taken as a whole, and there are no material considerations which indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. K Crutchfield INSPECTOR