Front porch

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:02 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6012981 Sunny Side, 41 Lemon Grove, Whitehill, Bordon, Hampshire GU35 9BD • 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 Paul King against the decision of East Hampshire District Council. • The application Ref is EHDC-25-1177-HSE. • The development proposed is a front porch. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a front porch, at Sunny Side, 41 Lemon Grove, Whitehill, Bordon, Hampshire GU35 9BD, in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref EHDC-25-1177-HSE and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 001.0, 002, 003, 003.1 and 004.0. 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling. Main Issues 2. The main issues in this appeal are: - The effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling, locality and streetscene. - The effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of the adjacent dwelling at 43 Lemon Grove, with regard to outlook, daylight and sunlight. Reasons Character and appearance 3. The proposal concerns a chalet style detached dwelling. The front porch addition would abut the boundary with the adjacent property at No 43, while projecting forward of the front of the host dwelling. However, it would have a fairly modest depth by comparison with that of the main flank wall and its width would be a particularly small proportion of that of the front elevation of the dwelling. The eaves level of its roof would be slightly below that of the main roof of the property. The Appeal Decision 6012981 2 hipped roof form would also significantly limit its bulk. Consequently, rather than being unduly dominant and competing with the host dwelling, the single storey front extension would be a subservient feature. 4. The adjacent two storey property at No 39 projects significantly forward of the front of the host dwelling. Further to the west the building line exhibits significant variation. Beyond the dwelling immediately to the east is a block of flats with a noticeably stepped front elevation. The front extension would not project nearer to the street than the dwelling at No 39. As a result, the extended dwelling would be compatible with the pattern of development in the vicinity, with no adverse effect arising in relation to building lines. 5. Due to the above factors, the porch would not appear incongruous or visually intrusive and the character and appearance of the host dwelling, locality and streetscene would not be harmed. 6. There would be compliance with East Hampshire District Local Plan: Joint Core Strategy (JCS), Adopted June 2014, Policy CP29, which among other things, seeks to ensure that development respects the characteristics of the area. 7. The most relevant part of the Council’s Residential Extensions & Householder Development Supplementary Planning Document, July 2018, concerns front extensions. The key points of this part indicate that porches should be subservient to the original building and not upset building lines and local character, which would be complied with in this case. Living conditions 8. The nearest window in the front of the neighbouring bungalow at No 43 is fairly wide and set back from the boundary. In this context and despite it abutting the boundary, the pitched and hipped roof form, together with the relatively modest height of the extension, would prevent any undue reduction in outlook, daylight or sunlight at the adjacent property. 9. For these reasons it is concluded that the living conditions of the occupiers of the adjacent dwelling would not be harmed. JCS Policy CP27 is the most relevant of those referred to in the Council’s decision notice in relation to this matter. The scheme would accord with the aims of this policy to prevent overshadowing having an unacceptable effect. Conclusion 10. The proposal would not result in any harm and comply with the development plan. There are no other material considerations that indicate a decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Conditions 11. In the interest of certainty, a condition specifying the approved plans should be imposed. The materials used should match those of the host dwelling to protect the appearance of the locality. M Evans INSPECTOR