Skip to main content
Official casework recordDismissedCurrent release

Appeal 3304445

Public case and site metadata stored from the official casework database, including fields that were empty in the source release.

A clearer next step

See how Inspectors approached issues like yours

Bring your planning decision into a private workspace. We separate the disputed points, then match them with source-located Inspector reasoning from similar appeals.

  • See which issues the decision appears to turn on
  • Compare the facts and open the full appeal records

One private comparison

How the refusal review works

One-off service · No subscription

Similar appeals are evidence to inspect, not a prediction of your outcome.

Official decision document

The decision, section by section

6 sections

Read the development description and the Inspector’s text from the official decision PDF in source order. Source headings are retained where available. Personal and contact details are removed by an automated privacy filter; this is source material, not Rules for You analysis.

Section 01

Development description

described as external alterations to include a front extension, a rear balcony, a first floor side extension and a second floor extension.

  1. Section 02

    Decision

    The appeal is dismissed.

  2. Section 03

    [name]

    The main issues are the effects of the proposals on: (i) the character and appearance of the surrounding area, and (ii) the living conditions of the occupiers of 12 and [address], with particular regard to privacy.

  3. Section 04

    Character and Appearance

    The appeal property is a 2-storey detached house with a pitched roof and an attached garage to the side. It is located in a residential cul-de-sac and, together with the properties to either side and on the opposite side of the road, forms part of a group of houses is similar age, appearance and design. This gives this portion of [address] a relatively hight degree of visual unity, a matter to which I attach significant weight. I note that there are houses in the road and surrounding area that have been altered and, in some cases, comprehensively re-modelled. However, these dwellings generally reflect the scale of their neighbours.

    The appeal proposal would comprise a radical re-modelling of the appeal property to create a flat-roofed, 3-storey house with a contemporary appearance. [name] recognise that the design approach would be similar to that adopted nearby, the inclusion of a third storey would result in a height, scale and form of development that would be overly prominent and incongruous in the context of 2-storey houses with pitched roofs.

    Due to its height, scale and form I therefore conclude that the proposal would have an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of its surroundings. As such the proposal fails to accord with Policy CS17 of the Fareham Borough Core Strategy 2011 which, amongst other matters, seeks to ensure that new development is of high-quality design and respects the key characteristics of the area including scale, form, spaciousness and built form.

  4. Section 05

    Living Conditions

    The appeal proposal would include a large terrace at first floor level, that would occupy the full-width of the rear of the property, and a balcony and roof garden at second floor level. These amenity areas would extend close to the side boundaries of the appeal site and therefore enable elevated views into neighbours’ gardens, including the spaces close to the rear elevations where some level of privacy is a reasonable expectation.

    I recognise that some level of overlooking is inevitable in residential areas comprising 2-storey houses. However, due to their size, elevated siting and closeness to the side boundaries, the rear terrace and balcony would result in a more overt and oppressive degree of overlooking and therefore loss of privacy for neighbouring property occupiers.

    For this reason I conclude that the proposal would have an unacceptable effect on the living conditions of occupiers of 12 and [address]. It therefore fails to comply with Policy DSP3 of the Fareham Local Plan Part 2: Development Sites and Policies (2015). This policy states that development proposals should ensure that there will be no unacceptable adverse impact upon living conditions on the site or neighbouring development, by way of the loss of sunlight, daylight, outlook and/or privacy.

  5. Section 06

    Conclusion

    For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should fail.

Planning inspector and document dates

The official casework attribution is grouped under a one-way keyed hash and shown only by its local identifier. Decision-letter dates and page references are extracted by fixed first-page rules and checked against that authoritative record.

  • Appeal Decision

    Extracted inspector · page 1
    Inspector attribution ID 246No official casework-database value to compare
    Extracted decision date · page 1
    22 December 2022Matches the official casework database
    Extracted site visit dates
    25 November 2022 (page 1)

Reference and authority

Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.

Case reference
3304445
Application reference
P/22/0768/FP
Lead case reference
Not recorded
Planning authority
Fareham Borough Council
Planning authority code
E07000087

Casework details

The casework, procedure, development and linking details supplied by the official record.

Casework type
Householder (HAS)
Procedure
Written Representations
Development type
Householder developments
Appeal type reason
1. Refused planning permission
Appeal reason
Refusal
Type detail
Planning Appeals - Full
Jurisdiction
Transferred
Link status
Not Linked

Site and development

Published appeal-site measurements and planning designations, without the withheld precise location fields.

Site area
Not recorded
Floor space
70 m²
Number of residences
0
Site in Green Belt
No
Agricultural holding
No
Affects setting of a listed building
Not recorded
Historic building grant made
Not recorded
Relates to a conservation area
Not recorded
Flooding is an issue
Not recorded
Site within an AONB
Not recorded
Site within an SSSI
Not recorded

Decision and dates

The published outcome and every imported case date.

Official decision
Dismissed
Decision category
Dismissed
Received date
3 August 2022
Valid date
3 August 2022
Start date
5 September 2022
Planning authority decision date
15 July 2022
Appeal decision date
22 December 2022

Case administration

Published recovery, call-in, costs and enforcement information for this case.

Redetermined
No
Bespoke
No
Date recovered
Not recorded
Date not recovered or derecovered
Not recorded
Call-in date
Not recorded
Costs applied for
Not recorded
Enforcement grounds count
Not recorded
Enforcement grounds
Not recorded

Source and catalogue history

When this record appeared in the rolling official release and when the catalogue stored it.

Source
Planning Inspectorate casework database
Source data system
Horizon
Dataset status
Current release
Catalogue record ID
25693
First seen
20 August 2026 at 14:24
Last seen
20 August 2026 at 16:26
Removed from release
Not recorded
Record created
20 August 2026 at 14:24
Record updated
24 August 2026 at 16:21