Appeal 6000602

The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for part single storey, part two storey rear extension at [site address] , Eversley, Hook, Hampshire [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/00427/HOU, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the conditions set out in the schedule at the end of this decision.

An application for costs has been made by [name] against Hart District Council. This is the subject of a separate decision.

The Council failed to determine the application within the prescribed period, however the Council has indicated in its statement that it would have refused planning permission had it retained the jurisdiction to do so.

The Council consider that the appellant should have served notice of the appeal on the owners of 1 Chantreyland (No.1). However, the submitted plans indicate that the proposed extension would not encroach on other land not under the appellant’s control. In such circumstances, I am satisfied that there was no need for notice to be served upon the owners of the neighbouring property.

There is a concurrent appeal1 for a similar proposal at the adjacent property, No.1. Whilst there are similarities between the two appeals, in the interests of clarity I have dealt with the appeals in two separate decisions. I have had regard to previous appeal decisions relating to the appeal site and the adjacent site2, however I have determined the appeal on its own merits.

A Unilateral Undertaking, dated 3 November 2025 was made under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, was submitted which seeks to ensure 1 6000601 2 APP/N1730/D/23/3317189, APP/N1730/D/23/3317190, APP/N1730/D/23/3334390 and APP/N1730/D/23/3334392 that the extension is built concurrently with that proposed at No.1. I return to this matter later in my decision.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal property is one of a semi-detached pair of dwellings which is located near to the entrance of a cul-de-sac which is primarily characterised by detached dwellings in spacious plots.

It is proposed to extend to the rear of the property with a ground floor hipped roof extension which is similar to that which has previously been allowed on appeal and the consent for which is extant. In addition, a first-floor extension is also proposed which would be set back from the ground floor element.

The submitted drawings show the proposed extension along with that which is proposed separately at No.1. The Council considers that if the extension at No.1 was not built, the first-floor element of the proposed extension at No.2 would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area.

Because the plans indicate the extensions proposed at No.1 as well as the appeal scheme, the south elevation of the proposed extension is not shown. However, the plans indicate that the corner brick detail which is evident elsewhere on the appeal property would be replicated and I can impose a condition requiring that the materials used in the extension match those of the existing dwelling. Therefore, even if the proposed extension was built in isolation, I am satisfied that, subject to the condition its external finish would be in keeping with the host dwelling.

In this scenario the blank south elevation of the proposed first floor extension would be visible from nearby properties and vantage points to the south along [site address] , [address] and Northwick. However, the extension would not be excessively deep, and as such would not appear imposing or bulky in this context. Furthermore, in this respect the proposal would not result in a significant sense of enclosure in the garden of No.1, which was a matter of concern for the Inspector in the previous dismissed appeal.

Although the semi-detached pair of dwellings would no longer be symmetrical were the extension to be built in isolation, the proposed hipped roof form would reflect the design of the original dwelling and would not represent an incongruous addition. The ground floor element if built in isolation would be asymmetrical, however the evidence indicates that this could occur under the extant consent. In any event given the single storey nature of this part of the proposed extension it would not be widely visible and would not result in a jarring appearance in the locality.

Because the appeal scheme would have an acceptable impact regardless of whether the extension proposed at No.1 is constructed, a planning obligation requiring the extensions to be built concurrently is not necessary. As such the submitted obligation has had no bearing on my consideration of this appeal.

For the reasons given I conclude that the proposal would have an acceptable impact upon the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore accord with saved Policy GEN1 of the Hart Local Plan (Replacement) 1996-2006 (adopted December 2002) and Policy NBE9 of the Hart Local Plan (Strategy and Sites) 2032 (adopted April 2020). Together, these seek to ensure that development proposals achieve a high-quality design and are in keeping with local character.

Several interested parties have raised concerns including in respect of overdevelopment, living conditions of neighbouring occupiers and highway safety. The retained garden area would be the same as if the extant consent were implemented and given the modest scale of the first-floor extension the proposal would not result in the overdevelopment of the plot or an overbearing impact on any neighbouring property. The proposed first floor window would face north and would look towards the garden of No.3 Chantryland. However, closer views of both this dwelling and its garden are already available from the existing north facing windows at the appeal property and as such the proposal would not result in a significant increase in overlooking. A condition limiting the introduction of windows in the west elevation of the first-floor extension would limit overlooking to the west.

Sufficient parking would be retained to serve the resultant dwelling, and no concerns have been raised by the highway authority. Any inconvenience and disturbance associated with construction would be temporary in nature.

Matters relating to covenants are private issues and do not have any bearing on the appeal. Building Regulations matters or other consents which may be required are dealt with under separate legislation. The tenure of the property or the effect of the proposal on its value are not matters which would justify withholding permission.

In addition to those conditions which I have already referred to in my decision and the standard time limit condition I have imposed a condition specifying the approved plans in the interests of certainty.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed and planning permission should be granted.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos 25.8086/M003, 25.8086/M004, P-53 and P-25-51 [name]

The external materials of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no windows/dormer windows shall be constructed above ground floor level on the west elevation of the extension hereby approved. End of Schedule