PLANS to build eight new houses in Romsey have been refused due to its impact on neighbouring properties.

Test Valley Borough Council's southern area planning committee refused the application at its meeting on July 19.

The plan, submitted by Stuart Wilson, was for eight new houses and an access road at Winchester Road, Romsey.

Neighbours from 12 properties submitted objections to the plan.

One said: “I note that some amendments have been made to these plans and so I wish to lodge my further objection to the development on the grounds that there will be a significant detrimental impact to myself and also my neighbours in properties in Tadfield Road who also back onto the proposed three detached houses. The new plans do nothing to mitigate the objections that have I have submitted previously.”

Another said: “With specific regards to the amendments to plots 1-3 with the new design to lower the roof height. This is actually the worse possible outcome for my property as I will be totally overwhelmed by the rear facade of plot 2.”

Romsey Town Council's planning committee submitted an objection and said: ”The height of the three detached dwellings on the application are overbearing in relation to dwellings in Tadfield Road and will impact on their amenity.”

In Test Valley Borough Council's notice of refusal, it said: “The proposed development at plots 1-3, by reason of their height, siting and scale would result in an unacceptable enclosing and overbearing impact on neighbours when viewed from their gardens and habitable rooms.

“The benefits of the scheme advanced by the applicant are acknowledged, however, the council can currently demonstrate a five year housing land supply and there is therefore no pressing need to allow further housing. Furthermore, the economic benefits are generic and could be delivered on other sites that do not result in conflict with the development plan and the proposal offers no meaningful bio diversity net gain.

“The benefits advanced do not outweigh the real and severe harm identified to the residential amenities of the properties listed above. As a consequence, the proposed development does not sufficiently provide for the amenity of these neighbouring properties”

The developer, Sherlock Architecture, has been asked for a comment.