Havant Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused over character and appearance in Havant?
Compare cited Havant examples on side gaps, dormers and overall design before choosing your next step.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 20 of 31
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 2
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 18
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 17
- of 20 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: Havant LPA (50.838402, −0.98936). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Havant Borough Council appeal findings
Havant extensions: gaps, dormers and design
The displayed allowed example is conclusion-only, so it cannot show which design detail helped.
Counted against appeals
Havant side gaps, dormers and design
Lost side gaps
A two-storey side extension would leave less than 2m to the boundary, reducing gaps that formed the street’s development pattern.
Oversized dormer in public views
The wide, bulky rear dormer would dominate the roof and was highly visible from public vantage points.
Remodelling and garage extension harm
Inspectors concluded that the remodel and garage extension would harm the area’s character and appearance.
Helped or needed
Allowed garage extension: stated conclusion
No unacceptable adverse effects
The Inspector concluded that the garage extension would not cause unacceptable adverse effects on the host property or locality.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify a lost side gap or boundary distance?
- Would a dormer be publicly visible, too wide or too bulky?
- Does the notice criticise size, siting, form or appearance?
The allowed garage-extension extract gives only its conclusion, not the design reasoning behind it. 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
1 example
9 January 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
a single storey extension to garage for recreational and personal use (gym, steam room, WC and bar).
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host property and the locality.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal proposal would not have unacceptable adverse effects on the character and appearance of the host property or the locality. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
18 November 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
demolition of outbuildings, side and rear extension, balconies, roof replacement, annexe, detached garage and general remodelling.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For these reasons, the proposed development would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area. Consequently, the proposal conflicts with Policy CS16 of the Havant Borough Core Strategy 2011, which requires that all development achieves high-quality design that integrates with the characteristics of the locality, respects its context, and enhances visual amenity. Moreover, the proposal fails to accord with the guidance set out in the SPD, which supplements the policies of the development plan.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
14 January 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
for creation of carport and first floor side extension, dormer to rear elevation, extension to existing roof including 3no. Velux rooflights to front elevation.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the appeal proposal upon the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Notwithstanding the close proximity of some properties to side boundaries elsewhere within the street and the other examples cited by the appellant, I accept that the Council’s reference to their [name] with regard to the width of plots and proposed buildings falls within the section on ‘[name] and [name]. Nonetheless with respect to extensions and additions to existing residential properties, paragraph 5.38 as set out therein stipulates 1 APP/X1735/D/20/3263863 that it is important that gaps are retained between buildings which helps to form the pattern of development in an area, which in turn influences local character. Therefore side extensions which have a negative effect on their gap between buildings should be resisted which is particularly important for two storey extensions; and in general such extensions should not be closer than 2m from the boundary with neighbouring properties, which would not be the case here.
Paragraph 5 · Source pages 1, 2
18 April 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as ‘[name] extension over the Garage to include a new extended Porch and some internal changes’.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal upon the character and appearance of [site address] and the wider street scene.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Overall, for the reasons given, by virtue of its size, siting, form, and appearance, I find that the proposal would be harmful to the appearance of [site address] and to the wider character and appearance of the area. By failing to display a standard of design that respects and responds positively to the local context of the area, the proposal would conflict with Policy CS16 of the Havant Borough Core Strategy March 2011. For the same reasons there would be conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework’s objectives for achieving well-designed and beautiful places.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
2 February 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
single storey front extension; removal of existing conservatory and replace with single storey rear extension; loft conversion including front and rear dormers and hip to gable with cladding on gable ends; render to elevation and fenestration alterations.
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 surrounding area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
There are no dormers on the properties immediately to the west and east of the appeal site, which draws attention to the new dormers on the host property, the rear of which is highly visible from various public vantage points, particularly on [address]. From those vantage points, the scale and width of the proposed dormer would appear excessive. It would dominate the rear roof to the host property, and, as a result of its overall bulk and width it would be out of scale with the character and appearance of the host property. The proposed dormer would not be subordinate or proportional to the roof of the host property.
Paragraph 5 · Source pages 1, 2