Fareham Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused over character and appearance in Fareham?
See why garages and extensions were judged harmful or acceptable in Fareham.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 19 of 20
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 5
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 14
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 17
- of 19 matched records
AI-assisted. Cited sources and wording were checked before publication. Based on 5 source-linked examples shown below. Review method and limits.
Planning Data area point: Fareham LPA (50.852632, −1.224654). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Fareham Borough Council appeal findings
Fareham garages and roof changes in the streetscene
The selected examples include more allowed appeals than the matched local set, so their outcome mix differs.
Counted against appeals
Why the garages were harmful
Materials and support letters fell short
For the timber garage, acceptable materials and support letters did not outweigh harm to the area’s character and appearance.
Timber garage found harmful
The decision concludes that the timber garage harmed the area’s character and appearance.
Helped or needed
Roof and extension details that helped
Modest ridge rise among varied roofs
The ridge rise was judged modest. The house was set back, at a terrace end and among varied roof forms.
Matching materials and hipped roof
Matching materials and a hipped roof were said not to create a dominant or incongruous streetscene feature.
Extension matched the house
The first-floor side extension was found to integrate well and match the house’s scale, design and proportions.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal say your building harms character and appearance?
- Is your proposal set back from the road or among varied roofs?
- Do your drawings show matching materials and a non-dominant roof form?
The displayed garage dismissals omit earlier analysis, and an extension example also considered landscape setting. These decisions do not predict another result.
Appeal evidence examples
Compare allowed and dismissed appeal reasoning
Each example separates the development, the Inspector-stated issue that selected it, and the reasoning from the decision. Compare the facts as well as the outcome: these examples do not predict how a different proposal would be decided.
Allowed appeal examples
3 examples
27 February 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
detached car port to the front elevation.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Having regard to the above, I therefore conclude that the proposal would not materially harm the character and appearance of the area. As such, it would accord with Policy D1 of the Fareham Local Plan 2037 (April 2023) in so much as this policy, amongst other things, seeks to ensure that new development will be of high-quality design to and responds appropriately to the positive elements of local character.
Paragraph 14 · Source page 2
17 October 2023 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
raise the ridge 1.5 metres to allow the conversion of the loft and installation of solar PV panels on south facing roof.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the appeal proposal on the character and appearance of the host property and surrounding area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
Within the above context, the proposed increase in height of the existing ridge and eaves would, in my view, be modest and would not appear out of scale or harmful to the streetscene. I accept that there would be a material change to the appearance of the host property when viewed from the road. However, as the host is set back from the main road and is located at the end of the small terrace where it appears as a ‘book end’ to that development and as there is a variety of roof forms and ridge heights in the surrounding area, the proposed increase in height combined with the use of a pallet of materials to match existing and hipped roof design would not introduce a visually dominant or incongruous feature within the streetscene.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
9 May 2022 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
erection of first floor side extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property and the landscape setting of the area.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
The proposal would result in a more balanced and symmetrical appearance to both the front and rear elevations of the host property. The new extension would also integrate well with the existing building and visually would be sympathetic to and in keeping with the scale, design and proportions of the existing property. The new extension would be sited well away from neighbouring properties. It would not increase the footprint of the existing property or encroach onto any open land. There would be no loss of any existing trees or landscaping, and there would be no impact on the wooded valley, which is located some distance to the north of the appeal site.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
2 examples
12 April 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
detached timber garage for use as ancillary storage for the existing dwelling.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I accept that the proposed external materials to be used in the construction of the garage would be acceptable and contrast well with the mixture of materials found in the area. Even so, neither this nor the fact that the only representations received in response to the appealed application were letters of support affect the findings I have reached or outweigh the harm to the character and appearance of the area that would result from the proposed garage.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 3
1 October 2021 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a timber garage for use as ancillary storage for the existing dwelling.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For the reasons set out above, the development harms the character and appearance of the area. It conflicts with Policy CS17 of the Council’s Core Strategy (adopted 2011), which requires development to respond positively to the key characteristics of an area, including landscape, scale, form and spaciousness. As outlined above, the development also conflicts with the guidance in the SPD.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2