Opposing a domestic extension, Horndean (53580, APP/M1710/D/16/3145640)

Wishing to safeguard the residential amenities of their 1879 (but unlisted) home, I was instructed to write a letter of objection to a neighbour’s proposed extension, submitted to East Hampshire District Council (Reference 53580).

Their detached home (left in the first photograph to the left), originally a farmhouse, had seen its surrounding farmland subsequently developed for housing (see in second and third images to the left of this text).

Details of the applicant’s extension can be viewed by going to –


A comprehensive review of the Development Plan was used to test the proposals for a first floor and two storey side extension with single storey rear extension.  A detailed letter of objection was drafted for the client’s approval, making full reference to all relevant local plan policies.

The Council’s Conservation Officer was approached to comment on the impact of the extensions on the setting of my client’s home – an undesignated heritage asset, whilst the client sought to lobby the local Ward Councillor, to request that the application be brought to the Planning Committee for debate and determination be elected Members.

Whereas Officers ultimately recommended the scheme for approval, I was instructed to speak against the application when it came to Committee.

Acting on the clients’ instructions to read an agreed for-shortened deputation, I was able to deliver the salient points of objection in the allotted 3 minute time slot.

There was a very close 7-6 vote to refuse the application and the client was very satisfied with this outcome. This was not the end of the story though. An Appeal was lodged (APP/M1710/D/16/3145640)  and as is the case with Householder applications, no further written submissions from third parties or the council would be entertained by The Planning Inspectorate.

In dismissing the Appeal 13.6.16, the Inspector opined –

“…the extension would appear to be of contrived design that does not relate well to the existing building. The extended building would also appear to be cramped on its plot and unduly close to and dominant in relation to the adjacent property, notwithstanding that property’s siting on higher ground. It would therefore be a discordant feature in the street scene and harmful to the setting of the former farmhouse and to the character and appearance of the surrounding area generally.”


A permission was subsequently granted under reference 53580/001 for a single storey wrap around extension, which did not have the same harmful effects on the client’s property.  For reference, details of those reduced proposals can be viewed by going to –


Groundworks as part of implementing the development were seen to be underway  7-1-2018 and the differing site levels to the client’s property can be seen in the last image on the left.

Testimonial from client:

“I am very happy to recommend the planning services of Steve Lawrence.  His advice, research of the area and carefully crafted correspondence to the Council was very good value for money and definitely contributed to the successful result that we were hoping for.”