CIVIC chiefs have refused controversial plans to extend two houses, already under construction.

The application was to add two dormer windows to the houses and add a room in the roof in Cupernham Lane, Romsey.

Now, Test Valley Borough Council has refused the alterations.

The scheme had received letters of objection from 26 addresses. Romsey Town Council and Romsey and District Society planning committee also raised concerns.

The main problem was that residents of Treviglio Close thought that the extension would overlook their gardens. 

READ MORE: Romsey planning: planning battle over controversial house extensions

The planning officer's report said: “The variation of the condition as applied for is considered to have a significant adverse impact on the character of the site and amenities of neighbouring properties. 

“The variation is considered to be contrary to the relevant policies of the TVBRLP and is unacceptable.

“The proposed development by virtue of the height of the proposed fenestration and proximity to the neighbouring properties would adversely impact the amenities of the neighbouring properties by way of overlooking.

“The proposed dormer, by reason of its scale, design and bulk would result in an unduly prominent and visually intrusive roof alteration, which would be at odds with and detrimental to the form and appearance of the existing dwelling as well as the established character and appearance of the adjacent development and surrounding street scene.”

Hampshire Chronicle:

Patricia Nightingale, of Treviglio Close, said: “I am pleased to hear that the planning officer has recommended the refusal of plans to add an extra storey with large dormer windows to two houses under construction in Cupernham Lane, Romsey. 

“Without waiting for planning permission to be granted, the developer has already partially completed this construction and it can clearly be seen how these additions impact neighbouring houses in Treviglio Close by overlooking their gardens and rear windows. 

“It remains to be seen whether the developer will appeal the decision, but had they stuck to the agreed plans the roofs would have been on before winter and more progress made towards completion of the development instead of it being in the partially completed state it is now.”