Single-storey rear extension at Cadiz Cottage, 78 Gosport Street, Lymington

What was proposed

Retrospective permission was sought for a single-storey rear extension, which had been substantially completed by the officer’s site visit.

“3PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The application seeks retrospective planning permission for a single-storey rear extension. The original lean-to single-storey element to the rear (store) of the dwelling has been previously removed. At the time of the Case Officer's site visit in late May, the proposed extension had been substantially completed.”

Officer report

The site and its history

The site is a traditional semi-detached home with a rising rear garden, and earlier permissions covered a garage and an unbuilt dwelling.

“In terms of the history of the site, a previous planning approval in 1979 allowed for a garage beyond the rear boundary of the site. Furthermore, planning permission was approved in 1984 for an infill new dwelling between numbers 76 and 78 which was not implemented. The rear of the property has been altered by removing a small lean-to store which was positioned beyond the kitchen, and a single storey extension has been constructed to infill an area to the rear.”

Officer report

Why officers supported it

Officers considered the extension small, subordinate and sympathetic, with acceptable effects on local character and neighbouring residential amenity.

“However, the proposed extension is only a small and subordinate single-storey infill extension and leaves a perfectly reasonable sized garden for the property. An extension of this modest size and scale is not considered to be in any way an overdevelopment of the plot. Overall, the development would be an appropriate, small scale addition which would be subservient to the host dwelling and designed to complement the existing building in terms of scale, form and materials.”

“With its limited height of 3 metres, the proposed extension would not be unduly prominent from the neighbour's amenity space, and being to the north there would not be a loss of light. Therefore, the impact on this neighbour's amenity is considered acceptable. The neighbour to the north is positioned a sufficient distance from the extension so that their amenity would not be affected.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicant, an objector and a district councillor took part as public participants.

Committee discussion

The case officer referred members to an update containing a further objection from the owner of number 76.

“Cllr J Davies declared a non-pecuniary interest in application 26/10276 as he is a member of Lymington and Pennington Town Council. He had not expressed a view in relation to the application and therefore concluded there were no grounds under common law to prevent him from remaining in the meeting to speak and to vote. He also declared that he is a board member of the New Forest National Park Association.”

“The Case Officer referred to the update sheet which contained a further objection received from owner of No. 76 on the basis of the development being overbearing and unsympathetic to the area.”

Minutes