Home extensions at 8 Bramble Walk, March

What was proposed

The application sought a single-storey rear extension and part two-storey, part first-floor side extension to the existing dwelling.

“Erect a single storey rear extension and part two storey and part first floor side extension to existing building…”

Officer report

The site and extensions

The site is a two-storey detached dwelling, with residential properties nearby; the side extension would reach 7.1 metres high and the rear extension 3.1 metres.

“Planning permission is sought to erect a single storey rear extension and part two-storey and part first-floor side extension to the existing dwelling.”

“The proposed first floor extension would extend some 4.0 metres from the existing side (northeast) elevation of the dwelling. The side elevation will have a maximum height of 7.1 metres and a height to its eaves of 4.9 metres.”

Officer report

Earlier refused application

A previous application for a first-floor side extension and single-storey rear extension was refused on 14 May 2025.

“Erect first-floor extension to side and single-storey extension to rear of existing dwelling…”

Officer report

The public speaker

The agent said the design had been reduced, would not overlook the neighbour, matched the existing building and had no statutory consultee objections.

The committee vote

Members agreed a proposal to grant permission against the officer recommendation, with delegated authority for appropriate conditions.

“Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Imafidon and agreed that the application be GRANTED against the officer’s recommendation with delegated authority provided to officers to apply appropriate conditions.”

Minutes

The final decision

Members did not support refusal because they considered the proposal would have little impact, fit the surroundings and not conflict with LP16.

“Members did not support the officer’s recommendation of refusal as they feel that the proposal will have very little impact to the neighbouring building, will be in keeping with what is already there and is not contrary to LP16 of the Local Plan.”

Minutes