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 worksOne-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.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
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.
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.
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.
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