Wraparound house extension at 35 Luccombe Road, Southampton

What was proposed

The application proposed a single-storey wraparound extension, resubmitted after an earlier rear-extension application.

“Proposed development: Erection of single storey wrap around extension (Resubmission of 25/00355/FUL) Application number: 25/00789/FUL Application type: FUL Case officer: Alex Lindfield Public speaking time: 5 minutes Last date for determination: 17.09.2025 Ward: Shirley Reason for Panel Referral: 5 or more objections received…”

Officer report

The site

The site is a two-storey semi-detached home with a driveway and rear garden in an established residential area.

“The application site comprises a two-storey, semi-detached residential dwelling located on the eastern side of Luccombe Road, within a well-established suburban area. The property is set back from the highway with a reasonably sized front garden…”

Officer report

Earlier permissions

Earlier decisions covered a side extension and loft conversion, and a single-storey rear extension.

“The proposal retains the approved depth (3.0m) and height (3.2m) of the rear extension (following demolition of the existing conservatory), but introduces a modest amendment by increasing the overall width of the extension by approximately 2 metres to infill the side of the property (following demolition of the existing garage) and create a wraparound extension.”

“Side extension & loft conversion (ref: 25/00308/PLDC) • Single storey rear extension (ref: 25/00355/FUL)”

Officer report

Officers’ recommendation

Officers recommended approval because the amendments were modest and would not cause significant harm to the area, neighbours or parking.

“Summary 7.1 The amended proposals to enlarge the previously consented rear and side extension would not give rise to significant harms in terms of the character of the area, neighbouring amenity or parking in the vicinity. Any suggestion that the property will be used as an HMO cannot be taken into consideration as part of this application and would need planning permission to change the use.”

“It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to conditions set out below.”

Officer report

Main planning issues

The main issues were the extension’s design and character, residential amenity and parking.

“The key issues for consideration in the determination of this planning application are: - Design and effect on character…”

Officer report

What residents said

Eight representations and a public petition raised concerns including overdevelopment, design, garden space, wildlife, parking, neighbour amenity and possible HMO use.

“Consultation Responses and Notification Representations 5.1 Following the receipt of the planning application a publicity exercise in line with department procedures was undertaken which included notifying adjoining and nearby landowners. At the time of writing the report 8 representations and a public petition have been received from surrounding residents. The following is a summary of the points raised:”

“Response: The applicant cleared their front garden of non-protected planting when they began their project. The proposed extension is of a modest size and the loss of wildlife for this residential extension would not be significant.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A local resident, the agent and a ward councillor addressed the Panel.

What the Panel considered

The Panel heard that the intended use was a family dwelling, any HMO conversion would need further permission, and much of the development already had permission.

“The presenting officer reported that letters have been received that confirmed that it was the intention of the applicant to use the house as a family dwelling and not to convert it to a House of Multiple Occupation. It was noted that any such conversion would require further permission to do so. It was also noted that the bulk of the development had granted permission under permitted development rights.”

Minutes

The vote

The Panel unanimously carried the recommendation for conditional approval.

“The Panel then considered recommendation that the application be conditionally approved subject to criteria listed in the report. Upon being put to the vote the recommendation was carried unanimously.”

Minutes

The decision

Planning permission was approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.

“RESOLVED that planning permission be approved subject to the conditions set out within the report.”

Minutes