Two-storey side extension at 92 Beecham Berry, Basingstoke

“The proposed side extension would be located in line with the existing house at both the front and rear building line and at the same ridge height of the existing house. The extension would provide a garage on the ground floor level and a bedroom, en-suite and bathroom at first floor level which would be connected to the existing house by a landing off the existing stairs.”

“The development also includes a new dropped kerb and hardstanding area which can be seen on the proposed block plan. The block plan shows a dropped kerb located to the northern front boundary on the pavement as well as a new permeable paving area.”

“The application site is located within the Basingstoke Settlement Policy Boundary.”

“The application site is a corner end of terrace plot which fronts Beecham Berry Road on both the west side elevation and front elevation due to the orientation of the plot. The front of the site comprises an open front garden laid to grass and the side and rear areas comprise of enclosed garden bounded by fencing and brick walls.”

“In principle, the erection of a two-storey extension would be considered acceptable subject to other material planning considerations. With regards to the impact on the visual amenity and character of the area, it has been concluded that harm would arise from the proposed development, whereby this harm is considered to be significant within the overall planning balance.”

“The application is recommended for refusal as the proposed development would cause harm to the visual amenity and character of the area which is not outweighed by public benefits. Harm has also been identified with regards to the impact on the highway network due to the lack of sufficient space provided to the…”

“Consultee Comment Where in the report this is considered Hampshire County Council Highways No objection subject to necessary consents. Issue vi.”

“The Committee discussed the proposed application and considered the scale of the application and, whilst acknowledging that the existing dwelling was relatively narrow, it was felt by some Members that the proposed development was excessive in size, effectively almost doubling the footprint of the existing property.”

“The Committee also discussed Reason 2 for refusal as set out in the officer report, relating to the proposed garage. The concern centred on the lack of compliance with the guidance contained within the Parking Standards Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), which requires a minimum setback distance of 5.5 metres behind the highway boundary.”

“RESOLVED that: the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:”

“1 The host dwelling is part of a terrace that has pairs of dwellings within it. The proposed extension being the same width as the host house and lacking any set back or set down from it results in an unacceptable form of development that is detrimental to the duality of the pair of dwellings within the terrace that would be visually intrusive to the street scene.”

“2 The proposed development would result in the creation of a garage that would not be compliant with the guidance contained in the Parking Standards SPD which requires a minimum set back distance on 5.5 metres behind the highway boundary. The proposal would therefore cause a highway safety concern contrary to Policy CN9 and EM10 of the Local Plan 2011-2029.”