Construction of front, side and rear extensions and enlarged replacement roof to include habitable accommodation and balcony to rear elevation

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 11 August 2026 by E Worley BA (Hons) Dip EP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 14 August 2026 Appeal Ref: 6007737 26 Perth Road, Gosport, Hampshire PO13 0XX • 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 Richards against the decision of Gosport Borough Council. • The application Ref is 25/00150/FULL. • The development proposed is the construction of front, side and rear extensions and enlarged replacement roof to include habitable accommodation and balcony to rear elevation. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the construction of front, side and rear extensions and enlarged replacement roof to include habitable accommodation and balcony to rear elevation at 26 Perth Road, Gosport, Hampshire PO13 0XX in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/00150/FULL, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos: 1136-PRA-NB-XX-DR-A-1100-B – Location and Block Plan, 1136- PRA-NB-XX-DR-A-1111-D – Proposed Site Plan, 1136-PRA-NB-XX-DR-A-1210- D – Proposed Elevations, 1136-PRA-NB-XX-DR-A-1140-B – Proposed Typical Section, 1136-PRA-NB-00-DR-A-1130-D – Proposed Ground Floor Plan and 1136-PRA-NB-01-DR-A-1131-D – Proposed First Floor Plan. 3) The external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be constructed in the materials shown on the planning application form. 4) The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until 3 vehicle parking spaces have been provided within the site in accordance with the Council’s Parking: Supplementary Planning Document, adopted February 2014. Thereafter those spaces shall be retained for the parking of vehicles only. Preliminary Matters 2. In both the banner heading and decision above, I have used the description of development specified on the Decision Notice. It more accurately describes the proposed development than that used on the application form, and I note that the revised description has been used on the appeal form. Appeal Decision 6007737 2 Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 4. 26 Perth Road (No.26) is a detached bungalow located in an established residential area. It has a pitched roof with a lower height hipped gable projection to the front elevation. Although the immediately adjacent properties within this part of the cul-de-sac are predominantly low-profile, single storey detached and semi- detached dwellings, the wider residential context beyond this is more varied. A number of nearby properties incorporate accommodation within the roof space facilitated by higher ridge heights. Consequently, the local built form displays a range of building heights, appearances and roof forms, including dormer windows and front-facing gables containing first-floor openings and a variety of materials including render and brick. While the front elevations of the properties along the row are slightly staggered, the properties are generally set back a similar distance from the front boundaries, with intervening gardens and parking areas between them and the road. 5. The appeal scheme seeks to extend the existing bungalow, including additions to the front, rear and sides and first floor accommodation within a reconfigured and extended roof space. The proposal includes a gable to the front elevation, the ridge of which would run perpendicular to the highway, in lieu of the existing pitched roof which runs parallel with the highway. 6. The proposals would add appreciably more bulk and mass to the property than at present. However, while the ridge height of the building would be greater than that of the properties in the immediate vicinity, including 22 Perth Road, the overall height and scale of the resulting dwelling would not be wholly inconsistent with others in the surrounding area, including those nearby in Camp Road. Moreover, although the proposed full width gable to the front of the dwelling would increase the built form adjacent to the front boundary and have a greater presence than the existing bungalow, the front elevation of No. 26 would not project significantly further forward than others in the row. The retention of gaps between the built form, similar to that which currently exists, would also prevent the development from appearing unduly cramped and would be consistent with the prevailing layout and character of the surrounding area. 7. Taking these factors together, alongside the use of materials that are appropriate to and reflective of the character of the locality, the development would not appear unduly visually imposing or discordant and would integrate satisfactorily within the street scene and wider area. 8. While the Council’s Design Guidance: Supplementary Planning Document, adopted February 2014 (SPD) advises that, generally and where the design and context allow, only modest front extensions will be acceptable, each proposal must be considered on its individual merits and within its specific context. In this instance, although the proposed front extension may be more substantial than those typically envisaged by the SPD, for the reasons set out above, it would not result in harm to the character or appearance of the street scene. Appeal Decision 6007737 3 9. In light of the above considerations, I conclude that the proposed development would not harm the character and appearance of the area. In that regard, it would not conflict with the aims of Policy LP10 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan 2011- 2029, adopted October 2015 (the LP), which seek development that is well- designed, of a high quality appearance and respects the character of the built environment. The Council’s delegated report also alleges conflict with Policy LP23 of the LP, however, it is unclear from its submissions as to how harm would arise in that regard. Other Matters 10. Notwithstanding the parking layout shown on the proposed site plan, the Council is satisfied that 3 off-road parking spaces could be provided to the front of the dwelling, in accordance with the Council’s parking standards1. As such, subject to the imposition of a suitable planning condition to secure appropriate parking arrangements, there is no compelling evidence that the proposal would lead to unacceptable on-street parking in the area. Furthermore, given this arrangement would not be dissimilar to others nearby, it would not be at odds with the prevailing character of the area. 11. Subject to appropriate boundary treatment, the proposed ground floor windows would not give rise to overlooking. In addition, the position of the rooflights in the roof slope, and the design of the Juliet balcony, which would not result in useable outdoor space at first floor level, would prevent any direct outlook towards neighbouring properties. Conditions 12. A condition relating to the timeframe for implementation of the permission is necessary, I have also imposed a drawing numbers condition for the avoidance of doubt. A condition requiring the materials to be as shown on the application form is necessary in the interests of the character and appearance of the area. However, it is not necessary to agree the precise colour or finish, given the variety of such in the locality. 13. I have also imposed a condition to secure adequate parking provision to serve the development, in the interest of highway safety. Conclusion 14. For the reasons set out above the appeal is allowed. E Worley INSPECTOR 1 Gosport Borough Council’s Parking: Supplementary Planning Document, adopted February 2014, Appendix A, Table 1a