A new bungalow which would have been built across two back gardens in Kings Worthy has been blocked – but councillors struggled to find a reason why.

The new plans showed a single–storey, three–bedroom bungalow with car parking being ‘shoe-horned in’ across the width of the gardens at the rear of the Lovedon Lane homes.

Planning permission was refused for a second time ‘on this complex case’ said the vice-chair of the Winchester City Council planning committee for land to the rear of 74 and 76 Lovedon Lane.

The case was said to be complex because planning had been granted for other projects locally. Cllr Jackie Porter (Lib Dems, The Worthys), as an objector to the build, said she didn’t agree with the papers and compared other developments where houses had been demolished and rebuilt. She was further concerned about setting a ‘shoe-horning in’ precedent where drives were too narrow for the emergency services.

The first rejected application saw two, two-storey houses at the site which included designs being overbearing, taking away light, not fitting into the area and overlooking its neighbours at number 72 and homes in Fryers Close. 

The proposed access runs off Lovedon Lane up the side of number 76, and is three metres wide at its tightest point and 4.2 metres adjacent to the lane.

It was established that emergency vehicles could not access the proposed home because 3.7-metre wide access was required. The need for a wider drive has been overcome by using building regulations and proposing a sprinkler system to be installed which makes the plans compliant, said the agent for the applicant. 

There were six written objections and verbal objections from two neighbours about vehicle movements along the driveway, delivery vehicles not being able to park and seeing over the 6ft hedges, the 40mph Lovedon Lane being busy, not in ‘spatial character’ and concerns over the back-filling of the garden.

Mike Collis at number 72, whose wife suffers from MS, lives next to the plot and would have the bungalow’s driveway running by his hedge. That is only one metre away from his downstairs dining room, soon to be a bedroom, he said.

The planning officer agreed that therefore it came down to ambulances not being able to access the site which was not unusual and the use of a gurney, a wheeled stretcher, would deal with emergencies and would not cause harm. 

Noise objections concerned vehicle movements and the heat pump. The plans proposed an air source heat pump that would be placed at an appropriate place determined by a noise report, the agent said. 

To help reduce driveway noise the planning officer said that a hard surface, like asphalt or tarmac, could be asked for rather than the gravel.

There were concerns that the site should not be developed at all, even as a bungalow; it was too big for the site but the officers wanted to make sure that the decisions could be backed up with policy and pressed the planning committee to consider every aspect so the council wouldn’t have to pay to fight an appeal.

It took time to define the finer details of why the planning application was not agreed. Two points were finally settled upon which was the inappropriacy of the area, its location being surrounded by the gardens of Lovedon Lane and Fryers Close impacting its surroundings and the amenity itself.

Applicant Chris Southcott can challenge the council’s refusal decision by lodging an appeal with the secretary of state.