Single storey detached garage building

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 26 August 2026 By Michael Evans BA MA MPhil DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date:28 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6011656 24 Osborn Road, Fareham PO16 7DQ • 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 A J Beal against the decision of Fareham Borough Council. • The application Ref is P/26/0387/FP. • The development proposed is a single storey detached garage building. Preliminary matter 1. Since the appeal was submitted a revised version of the National Planning Policy Framework (The Framework) has been published. Consequently, the main parties were given the opportunity to make representations on this. Those received have been taken into account in making this decision. Decision 2. The appeal is dismissed. Main issues 3. The main issues in this appeal are whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Osborn Road Conservation Area (CA), within which the site is located and the effect on the setting of the dwelling at the appeal site which has the status of a grade two Listed Building (LB). 4. In reaching my decision I must comply with the statutory duties set out in Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. These require that when assessing proposals for new development within a CA, special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing its character or appearance. In considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects an LB or its setting, the Local Planning Authority or the Secretary of State shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting. Reasons 5. The appeal concerns a fairly large detached dwelling that is set in a particularly large plot. In the Council’s Conservation Area Character Assessment, Osborn Road, 2006, it is indicated that the strong character of the CA derives from a series of Victorian villas set in large gardens. The development pattern is said to be unique in Fareham and differs markedly in density and layout from nearby Appeal Decision 6011656 2 development in Southampton Road. The villas are all well set back on their large plots and are surrounded with landscaped gardens and trees. I saw at my site visit that the unusually large front gardens combined with a general absence of buildings in these spaces gives a particularly distinctive regularity and attractive sense of openness and spaciousness to the CA and the setting of the LB at the appeal site. The relatively imposing grandeur of the host dwelling is appreciated without the presence of other structures to the front of it. 6. The new garage in the front garden would have a fairly large gap to the host dwelling and be set back from the street frontage and side boundaries. The new building would also have a finish resembling that of the existing garage. Fairly dense boundary vegetation and the front boundary wall, which also has the status of a grade two LB, would prevent the new building from being readily seen in views from Osborn Road. However, the significance of the CA deriving from the pattern of development is not dependent on public viewpoints and remains important regardless of whether these spaces can be seen from the street. 7. The Appellant points out that there are no buildings in the front gardens of dwellings on the northern side of Osborn Road and despite the above matters, the new garage would be a particularly unusual feature, intruding into the front garden and out of keeping with the pattern of development in the CA. The plans show that it would have a footprint of about 8.6m by 7m, with a hipped roof above, constituting an appreciable physical structure. In these circumstances its discordant presence would unduly diminish the significance of the CA and distract from an appreciation of the LB, harming its setting. For the above reasons, it is concluded that the character and appearance of the CA and the setting of the LB would not be preserved. 8. There is an existing triple garage at the site which was granted planning permission in 1999. However, this is set back significantly from the front of the host dwelling. Accordingly, and despite being visible from the street through the drive, it does not intrude into the front garden and therefore lends no support to the appeal. 9. Any harm to a designated heritage asset is a matter of considerable weight requiring justification and, in accordance with the Framework, I must weigh the harm against the public benefits of the proposal. There is no evidence of any adverse effect arising from a lack of covered car parking should the appeal be rejected. As such, the limited weight I accord this matter would not outweigh the harm to the CA and the setting of the LB and the scheme would conflict with Policy HE6 of the Framework. The failure to conserve elements of the CA that make a positive contribution to the area would be contrary to Policy HE9. 10. Fareham Local Plan 2037 Policies D1, HE1, HE2 and HE3 are relevant in this case. Among other things and taken together, these intend that proposals should conserve and enhance heritage assets and appropriately respond to the positive elements of local character and heritage. They also closely reflect the Framework regarding the effect on heritage assets. In the above circumstances there would be conflict with these policies. 11. The site would be large enough to accommodate a garage. However, the Council’s Fareham Borough Design Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) (Excluding Welborne), Adopted December 2015, indicates that even in this situation such proposals will normally only be allowed in streets where others are Appeal Decision 6011656 3 already found, which is not the case here. While the SPD does not specifically seek to address development in a CA or in relation to an LB, I see no reason why it should not apply in this case as the impact of such development on character and appearance regardless of the heritage designations is a fundamental material consideration. Consequently, there would also be conflict with the SPD. 12. Framework Policy S3 indicates that decisions on development proposals should apply a presumption in favour of sustainable development. This requires that Policy S4 should be applied when considering development proposals located within settlements as in this case. This policy intends that proposals should be approved unless the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects, when assessed against the national decision-making policies in this Framework. 13. In Policy S4 2. c. it is indicated that one of the circumstances where the benefits of approving development are likely to be substantially outweighed by adverse effects is failure to comply with one of the national decision-making policies which state that development proposals should be refused in specific circumstances. In this case there would be conflict with Policy HE6 and HE9 arising from the adverse effects in relation to heritage assets. In addition, there would be conflict with Policy DP3 because the development would not respond to the context or integrate with and enhance the surroundings. 14. The only benefit advanced in this case concerns the provision of parking within a building, which I considered above. As a result, in the above circumstances I conclude that the benefits of the scheme would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects. 15. This is a case where harm would arise and there would be conflict with the development plan. Moreover, there are no other considerations that would justify making a decision other than in accordance with the development plan and the appeal is dismissed. M Evans INSPECTOR