Roof extension at 13 Craneswater Avenue, Southsea

What was proposed

The application proposed a roof extension to the side, front and rear slopes to create an additional bedroom and ensuite.

“The proposal is for the construction of a roof extension to the side/front and rear roof slopes.”

“The proposal is for the construction of a roof extension to the side/front and rear roof slopes to facilitate the conversion and enlargement of the existing loft space into an additional bedroom and ensuite. The north, east and west elevations would be clad in vertical slate tiles to match the existing roof, the south elevation of the roof extension would be timber clad to match the existing first floor.”

Officer report

The site

The site is a two-storey semi-detached late-Victorian house in a road of similarly designed properties.

“The application relates to a two-storey semi-detached house on the south side of Craneswater Avenue west of its junction with Festing Road. The locality is characterised by similarly designed late-Victorian properties.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Earlier applications included a granted rear extension, two refused roof-extension schemes and a granted lawful development certificate.

“07/02193/FUL - Construction of a two storey and single storey extension to rear elevation (a two-storey extension measuring 4.5m wide x 3.3m deep extension infilling the recess to the rear elevation and a single storey extension to the existing two storey outrigger - both flat roofed in design, with painted rendered elevations and full height timber boarding and glazing to the garden elevation of the two-storey element. As built on site currently).”

“Decision - Refused 25/4/22 for the following reasons: 1. The design and appearance of the development, by reason of the increase in roof ridge, due to its bulk, scale, prominence and poor design, would result in an incongruous form of development harmful to the character of the existing dwelling and that of the Craneswater Avenue streetscene.”

Officer report

What officers advised

Officers recommended refusal because the proposal would be excessively bulky, incongruous and harmful to the character of the house and its surroundings.

“The whole addition would appear an excessively bulky and incongruous extension, ill- proportioned and positioned to the existing house. Whilst far reaching views of the addition at the front would be limited given the pattern of development in the road, the addition would be readily visible from the immediate environs within Craneswater Avenue. It would appear an awkward, ad hoc interruption of the front-side roofslope.”

“The rear element, by reason of its height, size and encroachment onto the existing two storey rear wing and subsequent adjacent, is considered excessive and overbearing, and would dominate the rear elevation, presenting an overtly vertical emphasis to the building which to all intents and purposes would appear as a three storey flat roofed building from the south - quite out of keeping with the scale and proportions of surrounding development.”

Officer report

Consultation and representations

No consultations were carried out, and no representations were received apart from the councillor’s call-in request.

“None - apart from the call-in request from Cllr Candlish.”

“Letters to adjoining properties were sent on 03.10.25.”

Officer report

Who spoke

Councillor Dorrington spoke in support of the application.

What members discussed

Members considered the design compatible with the existing appearance and the front projection acceptable in the wider street scene.

“Members' Comments. • The design is satisfactory in keeping with the existing appearance, bearing in mind the existing rear extension. • The modest amount that it projects at the front is acceptable in the street scene bearing in mind the wider area and that it is not in a conservation area.”

Minutes

The committee vote

The committee resolved to grant conditional permission contrary to the officers’ recommendation.

“RESOLVED to grant conditional permission contrary to the officers' recommendation.”

Minutes