Plans for a Fareham home extension branded 'very intrusive' by one councillor have been rejected after neighbours spoke out.

The amended application for 2 Cherrygarth Road, Catisfield, sought permission for a first-floor side extension and a single-storey rear extension out into the garden.

Fareham Borough Council planning officers recommended approval of the plans, but members of the planning committee went against this at a meeting on Wednesday, June 12.

The proposal attracted five submissions in support and 10 objections during public consultations.

A letter from applicant Kane Richmond, which was read by the committee, said he and his partner had been surprised by the amount of comments the application received.

The original designs included a second first-floor extension above the garage but this was removed from the scheme.

He said the initial plans had been put forward to add two home offices due to their current work situations.

He wrote: “Unfortunately, the original submission appeared to cause upset amongst our neighbours and the local community.

“Therefore, we decided to modify our initial plans whilst adhering to the comments made by the planning officers.

“The proposed second home office above the garage has been removed, and we hope this appeases any initial upset amongst residents.

“By radically modifying our initial proposal, we are hopeful this alleviates our neighbours’ concerns and builds relationships with residents moving forward.”

An agent representing residents of the neighbouring property said they were grateful for the amendments but still objected due to the 10-metre depth of the rear extension.

They said it would be overbearing, excessive and “tower” over the fence when viewed from their garden.

A reduction to eight metres in depth was suggested by both the neighbours and during the meeting by some committee members.

However, it was confirmed that councillors had to consider the scheme in the form that was before them.

Cllr Connie Hockley proposed refusal on the grounds that the development would be “overbearing and very intrusive on neighbouring properties”.

The committee rejected the application with eight supporting this move and one voting against.