Mark Nineham, of Fennel Gardens, Lymington, had proposed a single-storey rear extension and a two-storey side extension to his home, though his application was refused by New Forest District Council.
He subsequently appealed the decision, but an inspector has now upheld the council’s decision, arguing the extensions would have a detrimental effect on the character and appearance of Fennel Gardens.
The inspector noted that the proposed two-storey side extension, despite being set down from the existing ridge and set back from the existing front wall, would appear as an “overly dominant addition” to the dwelling.
READ MORE: Plans for crossing in Sarisbury Green set to make route to hospital safer
The inspector said: “I agree with the Council that a proposed frontage width of 3.5m compared to the existing of 4.3m would appear as an overly dominant addition to the dwelling, rather than achieving the necessary subservience.”
The inspector added that the additional built form would erode the spacious character and appearance of the residential area.
The inspector also considered the parking situation, as the proposed increase from two to four bedrooms would require three parking spaces within the curtilage of the appeal dwelling.
A shortfall of only one space would be the result as two would be available on the driveway.
However, the inspector noted that there is undesignated on-street parking opposite the dwelling in Campion Way.
READ MORE: Plans for crossing in Sarisbury Green set to make route to hospital safer
He also acknowledged the appeal statement’s arguments regarding the site’s location in relation to other travel modes and local shops and services.
The inspector concluded that it would be reasonable to take advantage of the flexibility suggested in Local Plan Policy CC2, as the deficiency of one space is unlikely to cause any noticeable effect or harm.
Despite this, the inspector’s decision was ultimately guided by the impact on the street scene.
The inspector concluded: “However, this does not outweigh my findings in favour of the Council’s refusal on the first main issue and accordingly the appeal therefore fails.”
The decision was made on October 20, following a site visit on September 15.
The appeal was lodged under Section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended.