Home   News   Article

Riverside 'house of tomorrow' finally wins the day with national park planners

More news, no ads


A computer image of the approved designs for Undershore Road near Lymington
A computer image of the approved designs for Undershore Road near Lymington

A BID to extend and modernise a home by the Lymington River to create a “house for tomorrow” has been passed on its fifth attempt.

Mr and Mrs Teal’s application for Sumaya in Undershore Road includes proposals for an upper terraced area, replacement contemporary green flat roof and full height windows on both floors.

It was previously refused because it exceeded the 30% limit on additional floorspace and was of an inappropriate design.

But at a national park authority planning meeting, members heard the size of the proposed development had been reduced and the design tweaked to include tinted windows.

Previous fears that views to the Burrard Neal Monument 120 metres from the address would be affected had since proved unfounded.

Officers recommended refusal of the plan on the grounds its “extensive glazing, concrete materiality and stark, angular design” would fail to preserve the character of the conservation area or setting of the monument. However, members voted nine in favour, with one abstention.

Mrs Teal told the meeting future generations would benefit from environmental measures included in the design.

“My husband and I are both in our 70s and have no time to lose if we are going to live in an efficient and acceptable home,” she said.

“We look over a busy road and the large development of Lymington Shores. Undershore Road has every type of development in it – every house bar one has been extended and developed.

”Our proposal is no threat to the Forest’s intrigue and charm and we’re confident that in 25 years’ time this will be viewed as a classic design of the 2020s.”

She urged members to “take a leap”, saying: “We are asking you to build a house for tomorrow, not for today.”

But proposing refusal, Richard Frampton said: “When this came to us last year there was quite a debate about the floor space area and the need to bring that down – maybe we didn’t give a clear enough picture to the applicant that the design was a bit over the top. Officers have been consistent with their view: it’s still top loaded and it looks different to the existing and out of keeping”.

But, said George Bisson: “Just because it’s modern and different that doesn’t mean to say it doesn’t fit in or improve the landscape.”

Barry Rickman liked the “imaginative design”, saying: “Compared to what is in that area already, with the amount of glass, it’s difficult to say no.”

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies - Learn More