DELEGATED OFFICER REPORT

APPLICATION REFERENCE: APP/25/00014 
APPLICATION TYPE: Full Planning Permission
PROPOSAL: Creation of new first floor via roof alterations with rear extension and rear dormer, including a front dormer, a change of materials, a ground floor rear extension with canopy, rear decking and front facing porch.
SITE ADDRESS: 10 Spring Vale, Waterlooville, PO8 9DA
AGENT DETAILS: Mr Cox 
ASC
APPLICANT DETAILS: Mr Brough
CASE OFFICER: Robert Riley
TARGET DATE FOR DECISION: 26/03/2025

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT PERMISSION

1	Site Description 

1.1  The application site comprises of a bungalow located in Cowplain. The application site features both a front and rear garden, with parking provided by a side adjoined garage and to the front of the dwelling. The property's materials feature brickwork for the external walls and brown concrete tiles in a pitched gable design for the roof.

1.2  The application site is in an area that would be considered both urban and residential, with the character of the road featuring generally similarly sized dwellings with a variety in external materials.

2	Planning History 

94/53542/002 - Single storey front extension., PERM,10/10/1994	
APP/24/00846 - Certificate of Lawfulness (Proposed) for the erection of a garden outbuilding, PERM,11/12/2024	

3	Proposal 

3.1  Creation of new first floor via roof alterations with rear extension, including dormers to the front and rear, a change of materials, a ground floor rear extension with canopy, rear decking and front facing porch.

         Officer comment:

3.2   The proposal has been significantly amended regarding the rear aspects of the works during the application process.

4	Policy Considerations 
	
	National Planning Policy Framework
	Havant Borough Council Borough Design Guide SPD December 2011        
	Havant Borough Council Parking SPD July 2016

Havant Borough Local Plan (Core Strategy) March 2011
CS16	(High Quality Design)	
DM13	(Car and Cycle Parking on Residential Development)	
DM8	(Conservation, Protection and Enhancement of Existing Natural Features)	

Havant Borough Local Plan (Allocations) July 2014
 
AL1	(Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development)	

Emsworth Neighbourhood Plan Post Examination Version 2020
N/A

	Listed Building Grade: Not applicable.
	Conservation Area: Not applicable.

5	Statutory and Non Statutory Consultations 
	
Councillor Andrew Briggs	
No comments received	

Councillor D Keast – Cowplain	
No comments received	

Councillor Neil Bowdell – Cowplain	
No comments received	

Developer Services, Southern Water	
Southern Water has no objection to the above planning application	

Ecologist	
This one is OK. Solid, concrete interlocking roof tiles and no soffit/fascia	

6	Community Involvement 

	This application was publicised in accordance with the Council's Code of Practice for Publicity of Planning Applications approved at minute 207/6/92 (as amended), as a result of which the following publicity was undertaken.

	Number of neighbour notification letters sent: 18

	Number of site notices: Not applicable.

	Statutory advertisement: Not applicable.

	Number of representations received: 4 (multiple comments from third parties and names from the same addresses) 

Comment	Officer Comment	
Summary of objections		
		
Overlooking concerns

Wrong description on superseded plans

Drainage concerns

Turning a bungalow into a house.

Design is out of keeping

Overshadowing concerns

Sense of enclosure from flank brick wall

Works may be built incorrectly

Disappointment with the council

Rear 3d view is misleading

Ground floor windows and overlooking concerns.	Overlooking issues are assessed in section 7 of the report

The description was changed with regards to the first floor rear extension. However this has now been superseded and the description has been updated and readvertised accordingly.

Guttering is shown on the proposed plans.

No policy is in place preventing bungalows from being converted to houses. Development in an urban area is considered acceptable subject to development management criteria which is assessed in section 7.

The impacts upon the character of the dwelling and upon visual amenities are assessed in section 7.

This is assessed in section 7.

This is assessed in section 7.

If the works are permitted and it is felt the approved plans were not complied with, please contact the enforcement team.

Disappointment with the council is noted.

This is noted, scale of  works is
assessed in section 7.

This is assessed in section 7.

	
7	Planning Considerations 

7.1	Having regard to the relevant policies of the development plan it is considered that the main issues arising from this application are:

	(i)	Principle of development
(ii)	Appropriateness of design and impact on the character of the area
(iii)	Effect on neighbouring properties
(iv)	Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG)
(v)     Ecology
(vi)    Parking

	(i)	Principle of development 

7.2	The application site is located within the defined urban area, therefore development is considered acceptable in principle subject to development management criteria.

	(ii)	Appropriateness of design and impact on the character of the area

7.3   The works would be readily visible on the streetscene with regards to the proposed front dormer and porch and the rear first floor flat roof section would be visible at select vantage points.

7.4   Regarding roof forms, whilst the Havant Borough Design Guide SPD ordinarily discourages flat roof first floor rear extensions, officers note it would feature a flat roof for approximately 2.1 metres and to the rear of the flat roof. Whilst this would present a significant flat roof element to the rear of the original bungalow, the flat roof element would not be dominating, and would only be visible at certain vantage points. It is also noted that the streetscene features an eclectic mix of roof forms of large dormers and No.32 Spring Vale features a similar central flat roof element (though with pitches to the sides). Owing to the limited depth of the flat roof section of the rear first floor works, and owing to limited visibility on the streetscene on balance officers do not consider this element to have an unacceptable impact of the character of the dwelling and upon visual amenities. 

7.5    Regarding the first floor rear dormer, whilst there is a permitted development fall back for dormers of this size, it is proposed to the rear of the flat roof section which makes it require planning permission. Whilst the dormer is of a relatively large size to the rear of the dwelling, it is noted that Nos 6 and 4 Spring Vale and No.24 Cotwell Avenue to the south feature similar rear dormers to what is proposed at No.10 Spring Vale. Regarding this, though the dormer is of a relatively dominant scale upon the proposed rear roof slope, it is not considered out of keeping with nearby roofscapes. Moreover, it would bot be readily visible on the streetscene. In light of this, on balance the rear dormer is not considered so unacceptable to warrant the refusal of this planning application.

7.6    The proposed front dormer would be of a relatively large scale upon the front roofslope, however it would feature a pitched roof, and would be of a similar scale to nearby dormers at Nos 6 and 4 Spring Vale. In light of this, it is not considered that it would be a visually intrusive on the streetscene and is considered acceptable in this regard.

7.7     The proposed ground floor rear extension with a rear canopy would feature an approximate width of 10 metres, an approximate maximum depth of 6.6 metres (approximately 7.2 metres including canopy) and an approximate maximum height of 3.1 metres (approximately 3.3 metres including rooflights). It would not be readily visible on the streetscene, and would be subservient to the existing dwelling regarding its depth and its proposed single storey nature and modest height. In light of this, the proposed single-storey rear extension is considered acceptable.

7.8     The proposed rear decking is considered acceptable. The proposed front facing porch would be of an appropriate scale to the dwelling and is considered acceptable.

          Materials

7.9   The existing pitched roof would be altered to feature slate effect tiles which is considered acceptable, the proposed pitched roofs would feature slate effect tiles which is also acceptable. the flat roof sections of the works would feature either EPDM or GDP which are both considered acceptable. The porch would feature brickwork for the external walls which is considered acceptable. The ground floor rear extension would feature white render for the external walls which is acceptable. The dormers would feature smoked oak cladding, which is not considered to detract from the streetscene which features a variety of materials and is considered acceptable.

7.10	The design and appearance of the proposal is on balance deemed appropriate in context to the main building and is therefore considered to be acceptable, meeting the requirements of Policy CS16 of the HBLP (Core Strategy) 2011.  It is considered that the scheme on balance would not result in an adverse impact on the visual amenity of the locality.

	(iii)	Effect on neighbouring properties

7.11	To the northeast, southwest and southeast sides of the application site are properties at No.12 Spring Vale, No.8 Spring Vale and Nos 51 and 53 Hazleton Way. Due to proximity, the main impact to assess would be in regard to these properties. Due to the location, nature and scale of the works, properties to the front of No.10 Spring Vale are considered to be acceptably impacted by the works. The proposed decking would be approximately 30cm which would accord with permitted development rights and is considered acceptable.  

         No.12 Spring Vale

7.12  The proposed front porch owing to its proposed fenestration, scale and location would acceptably impact No.12. The proposed front dormer owing to its set in position on the roofslope would not be overbearing or lead to an unacceptable increase in overshadowing. The front dormer would feature fenestration facing the public realm and would acceptably impact No.12 Spring Vale. Officers have considered it important to assess the impact of the proposed rear works to No.10 Spring Vale owing to the close proximity to No.12 Spring Vale.

7.13 Officers have considered it important to assess the impact of the proposed rear works to No.10 Spring Vale owing to the close proximity to No.12 Spring Vale. Regarding overlooking concerns, the first floor, flat roof rear extension would feature side fenestration however this has been shown as having high level openings and obscure glazing and will be conditioned if permission is forthcoming and this is considered to acceptably impact No.12 Spring Vale. The rear dormer and ground floor rear extension would feature rear fenestration however this would face No.10’s rear garden which is considered acceptable. Regarding overshadowing and overbearing impacts, the rear extension would comply with the 45 degree angle test in Figure 5.12: Design of a rear extension should avoid the loss of light to neighbours of the Havant Borough Design Guide SPD regarding both depth and height with relevance to No.12’s rear conservatory owing to the separation distance and protrusion of the extension. Owing to its set off from the boundary this element of the works is not considered to have an overbearing impact upon No.12 Spring Vale. Regarding the flat roof rear extension with rear dormer it has been considered important to assess the impact upon No.12’s rear conservatory. Officers note that the first floor rear dormer, presenting a first floor to ground floor relationship to the conservatory has been considered important to assess regarding overshadowing and overbearing concerns. Officers note that the dormer would protrude beyond approximately 40% of the rear conservatory’s side fenestration, as such having regards to the SPD guidance it is considered that there still would be adequate light and on balance there would not be an overbearing impact.  

        No.8 Spring Vale

7.14 The proposed front porch is considered acceptable regarding overbearing, overshadowing and overlooking concerns regarding No.8 Spring Vale. Regarding the proposed front dormer, fenestration would face the public realm which is considered acceptable, and it is considered acceptable regarding overlooking concerns. Regarding overshadowing and overbearing concerns, regarding its location set into the front roofslope and that impacts would be upon the roof of the combined side garages which is considered acceptable. The proposed first floor rear flat roof extension and rear dormer would feature rear fenestration only providing oblique views which is acceptable and to its southwestern side elevation would feature obscure windows facing No.8 which is considered acceptable. Owing to an approximate minimum 4.8 metre separation distance from these proposed first floor rear works and that the bulk lessens towards the rear, officers are of the opinion that overshadowing and overbearing aspects would be on balance acceptable with regards to No.8's side windows on its rear extension.

7.15  Officers have considered it important to assess the impact of the proposed ground floor rear extension upon No.8. Regarding overlooking, the rear fenestration would face the rear garden of No.10 which is considered acceptable. Officers note that there are 2No high level windows on the western elevation facing No.8, as these would be high level they would not offer views of No.8. With regards to these considerations, No.8 is considered to be acceptably impacted regarding overlooking concerns. Regarding overbearing and overshadowing concerns. Officers note the extension is noted to be proposed at approximate 3.1 metres tall and would be between approximately 0.8-0.4 metres from the common shared boundary. Officers note that the rear extension of No.8 is fully glazed to its rear and eastern elevations. Officers have performed a 45-degree angle test regarding depth officers consider that it would pass the depth test, moreover, owing to an approximate 3.2 metre separation distance from the southwestern elevation of the rear extension and the northeastern elevation of No.8's rear extension, officers note it would meet the height test. With regards to this, officers consider that the rear extension would be on balance acceptable regarding overshadowing of No.8's rear fenestration. Regarding overbearing concerns, officers note it would increase a sense of enclosure to the rear garden of No.8 however owing to a generous rear plot and the distance of the extension to No.8;s extension officers consider that on balance there would not be an unacceptable increase in the sense of enclosure. Regarding these concerns, No.8 is on balance considered to have an acceptable relationship with the proposal at No.10 Spring Vale.  

       Nos 51 and 53 Hazleton Way

7.16 The works would due to sufficient separation distances be acceptable regarding overshadowing and overbearing concerns. Regarding overlooking concerns, officers have considered it important to assess the rear fenestration of the rear dormer. Officers note the rear windows of the dormer would be approximately 36 metres from No.51 Hazleton Way's rear garden and approximately 40 metres from No.53 Hazleton Way's rear garden, at these distances, overlooking increases would be limited and acceptable.  

7.17	Consequently, on balance it is considered that the proposal would not appear overbearing or lead to a loss of light, outlook or privacy and on balance would have limited and acceptable impact on the properties immediately adjacent to the application site and the properties opposite or to the rear, meeting the requirements of Policy CS16 of the HBLP (Core Strategy) 2011.  It is noted 4 letters of objection were received with respect to the scheme, however for the above reasons the proposal is considered to be acceptable.

	(iv)	Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG)

7.18	It is noted that this householder application is exempt from the requirements relating to Biodiversity Net Gain.

         (v)     Ecology

7.19   Due to extensive works to the roof of the dwelling, the Council's Ecologist has been consulted during the application process regarding bat risk. Regarding this, the Council's Ecologist has raised no concerns, as such it is considered acceptable regarding risk to protected species, and is considered to accord with Policy DM8 of the Havant Borough Local Plan (Core Strategy) 2011 and is considered acceptable in this regard.

        (vi)    Parking

7.20  The proposal would reduce the amount of potential parking space, due to the proposed front porch. The proposal would not increase the number of bedrooms on site, which would remain at 3No bedrooms. This requires 2 parking spaces to be provided on the curtilage of the application site. It was noted on the site visit that the curtilage could fit 2 cars on it, and this proposal is considered to accord with the Havant parking SPD and Policy DM13 of the Havant Borough Local Plan (Core Strategy) 2011 and is considered acceptable in this regard.

8	Conclusion 

8.1	The proposed development is on balance acceptable in principle, is on balance appropriate in terms of design and its impact on the character of the area, and on balance would have a limited and acceptable impact on the neighbouring properties. On this basis it is recommended for approval.

9	RECOMMENDATION:

That the Head of Place be authorised to GRANT PERMISSION for application APP/25/00014 

Subject to the following conditions

1	The development must be begun not later than three years beginning with the date of this permission.
Reason: To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.	
		
2	The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

Drawing Number: EXISTING - BROUGH - E 01: EXISTING GROUND FLOOR PLAN AND ELEVATIONS: Uploaded 13/01/2025
Drawing Number: 01D: PROPOSED FLOOR & BLOCK PLANS: Uploaded 10/07/2025  
Drawing Number: 02E: PROPOSED ELEVATIONS and block plan: Uploaded 10/07/2025  

Reason: - To ensure provision of a satisfactory development.	
		
3	The external materials used shall be as indicated on the submitted forms and hereby approved plans, or shall match, in type, colour and texture, those of the existing building so far as practicable.
Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and having due regard to policy CS16 of the Havant Borough Local Plan (Core Strategy) 2011 and the National Planning Policy Framework.	
		
4	Notwithstanding the provisions of any Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended), the 4No first floor side windows on the plans hereby approved shall be fitted with textured glass which obscuration level is no less than Level 4 of the Pilkington Texture Glass scale (or equivalent) and shall only be openable at a minimum of 1.7 metres and shall be retained as such thereafter.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties and having due regard to policy CS16 of the Havant Borough Local Plan (Core Strategy) 2011 and the National Planning Policy Framework	
		
5	Notwithstanding the provisions of any Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended),, the proposed ground floor side door serving a utility room on the plans hereby approved shall be fitted with textured glass which obscuration level is no less than Level 4 of the Pilkington Texture Glass scale (or equivalent) and shall be retained as such thereafter.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties and having due regard to policy CS16 of the Havant Borough Local Plan (Core Strategy) 2011 and the National Planning Policy Framework.