The Lymington Society

 

Weekly Planning Search - Jan 27th 2010

95046 - 75 LOWER BUCKLAND ROAD (On the edge of the Area of Special Character)

registration date:  08/01/2010

Location:  One of the inset houses behind the front rank along the W side of the road, approached up a drive beside No 73

Proposal:  Single-storey extension; conservatory

Statutory Class:  Householder developments

Consulted:  neighbours 10, others 3

Comment:  An earlier application (94007) was refused in 2009:  " The proposed two-storey extension would, by reason of its height at both eave and ridge level, create an extension that appears awkward in relation to the host building. Furthermore, the overall bulk and mass of the extension is out of scale with the existing dwelling, which is exacerbated when viewed from the front, resulting in a harmful impact to the visual amenities of the area and its designation as an area of special character. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies DW-E1 and DW-E11 of the New Forest District Local Plan First Alteration".   We didn't object then and I don't see any reason to now, although it will be interesting to see the planners' reaction to this attempt to overcome their earlier objection..   The proposed changes are still quite ambitious but given that the site is quite large they do not appear to me excessive from the limited information on the website.   Neighbours may take a different view.

Recommendation:  no action

 

95047 - 10 PADDOCK GARDENS

registration date:  06/01/2010

Location:  One of the many houses in this estate development, near the centre

Proposal:  Single storey rear extension

Statutory Class: Householder developments

Consulted:  neighbours 6 others 3

Comment:  No history.   Looks like a simple single-storey extension - not a Society matter

Recommendation:  No action

 

95093 - DENE END BUCKLAND DENE (Area of Special Character)

registration date:  14/01/2010

Location: 

Proposal:  Single-storey side extension; roof alterations

Statutory Class: Householder developments

Consulted: 

Comment:  93829 was refused in April 2009:  "The proposed garage, by reason of its poor design and flat roof element, is out of keeping with surrounding development and fails to respond to the local context of the area which is of a higher design quality and to enhance local distinctiveness. Furthermore the prominent position and the size of the garage exacerbates this resulting in an adverse impact upon both the visual amenities of the area and its designation as an area of special character. The development would therefore be contrary to policies DW-E1, DW-E11 and BU-H1 of the New Forest District Local Plan First Alteration".   94392 overcame the objections and was granted last September.   Now the owner wants a slightly bigger extension.   We have not objected before and again there seems no reason to now

Recommendation:  No action

 

95094 - 32 LOWER BUCKLAND ROAD

registration date:  14/01/2010

Location:  E side of the road, 100 yards from the old Infirmary

Proposal:  Single-storey rear extension

Statutory Class: Householder developments

Consulted:  neighbours 6 other 3

Comment:  94261 was refused in June 2009:  "The proposed extension, would by reason of its close proximity to number 5's kitchen window, have an overbearing impact and loss of light to an unreasonable degree, resulting in an adverse affect on the neighbours' amenities. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies DW-E1 and BU-H1 of the New Forest District Local Plan First Alteration".   This is the follow-up.   A letter from the agent says:  "I understand from the applicants that the unexpected refusal for the last application was entirely due to the late arrival of a letter of support from the neighbouring occupiers at Flat 5, Archgate" and another letter, from such a neighbour, says there is no such objection.   Not a matter we should get involved in!

Recommendation:  No action

 

94989 - 3 SOLENT PLACE, BATH ROAD

registration date:  07/01/2010

Location:  Part of the terrace opposite Berthon

Proposal:  Two-storey rear extension

Statutory Class: Householder developments

Consulted:  neighbours 6 others 6

Comment:  A proposal to refurbish another of the small cottages in the Conservation Area in appropriate style.   It is next door to 94900, which awaits a decision.   If the planners are happy we should welcome it as a move to brighten up this rather dingy corner of the town

Recommendation:  Other views welcome with a view to a letter of support.

 

94996 -STANWELL HOUSE HOTEL 14-15 HIGH STREET

registration date:  11/01/2010

Location:  High Street

Proposal:  Alter fenestration & doors to create 3 extra guest suites

Statutory Class: Other minor development

Consulted:  neighbours 23 others 16

Comment:  The design statement claims that "These proposals are all in the recent extensions and have very little impact on the exterior elevations of the building; where it does it is proposed that materials matching the existing would be employed. The Proposals have no effect on the historical parts of the building."   No doubt the listed building planners will pore over the details but there doesn't seem to be any threat to the wider town

Recommendation:   No action

 

95005 - BRIDGE COTTAGE, BRIDGE ROAD

registration date:  13/01/2010

Location:  The garage to be retained is actually in Waterloo Road, but adjoins the recently refurbished house on the corner of Bridge Road

Proposal:  Retention of garage with room over

Statutory Class: Householder developments

Consulted:  neighbours 6, others 10

Comment:  This application apparently arises from an enforcement order, following implementation of 84394 which granted consent for "Single-storey side extension; double garage; roof alterations; rear conservatory; access alterations and boundary wall" - ie refurbishment.   The correspondence between the agent (Robin Bryer) and the enforcers is hilarious and well worth a read.(http://web3.newforest.gov.uk/images/planningimages/133234_1.pdf).   It comes down to a matter of aesthetics (in which I am inclined to side with the agent) but also of enforcement (in which I side with the planners in principle, in spite of their apparent disarray).

Recommendation:  Watch from the touchline