Plans to build a house in the garden of a home in an East Lothian cul de sac were rejected as ‘harmful and at odds’ with the area.
The decision was taken after officials said it would be ‘crammed’ into the space.
East Lothian planners refused permission for the house, which was proposed to be built in place of outbuildings used as part of a dog boarding business by the applicant Brian Watt, saying the space was not big enough.
However Mr Watt has now appealed to the council’s local review body saying neighbouring homes in the cul de sac have already been built as infill housing.
Agents from Mr Watt say he has is ‘aggrieved’ by the decision by planners insisting the proposed four bedroom home would be hidden from public view on land which has been mature gardens.
And they argue that since it has been used as part of a dog boarding business it is ‘working’ land rather than a domestic garden.
Appealing the decision they say: “The garden area to the north as it exists has a largely working character rather than high amenity value, with few trees except to the eastern boundary and a series of functional outbuildings, sheds and garden structures associated with the applicants’ dog boarding business as well as practical surface treatments including artificial grass and extensive low – maintenance gravel ground cover with limited ecological value .”
They add: “The proposed house would be less confined than the neighbouring existing dwellings which were themselves constructed as infill development on garden ground and have been integrated successfully into the streetscape.”
Planners rejected the application for the house saying they felt it would lack back garden space.
They said: “By its positioning and the higher density of built form that would result from it, a house erected on the application site would be a substantial intrusion into its constricted setting and would amount to a crammed form of infill housing development harmfully at odds with the predominant streetscape pattern and density of the layout of the houses and gardens of this part of Dunbar Road, and thus not appropriate to its place.”
The appeal will be heard by the review body later this month.
By Marie Sharp Local Democracy Reporter
