FUMING locals on 'Millionaire's Row' live in fear their posh seaside town will be ruined by a neighbour's "obscene" extension.
The "shipping container" is set to become an eyesore which blights the picturesque landscape, claimed residents on Thatcher Avenue in Torquay, Devon.
Furious homeowners say the unwanted structure will block beautiful sea views and look directly into their homes - destroying the area and their privacy.
Thatcher Avenue is known as Torquay's Millionaires' Row, and house prices average a staggering £1.7 million.
Locals are so intent on squashing the plans they have forked out more than £3,000 on a scale model to show Torbay Council, and threatened to file an Ombudsman complaint.
I'm a property expert - my guess for the cheapest time to buy a home this year
David Wilson, 65, who has lived in the area for 25 years, told The Sun Online: “It [the extension] looks like a shipping container planted on the roof.
"It just looks obscene from the planning documents. The planning department doesn’t seem to have had the full picture or didn’t do their due diligence."
The concerned resident claimed the structure will have four windows offering a direct view into his downstairs bedrooms.
"I will lose a portion of my sea view when this goes up but a neighbour will lose theirs completely which I think will cause financial damage," he added.
David further claimed one of his neighbours will also lose a lot of light.
Meanwhile, Clive Jones, 80, who has lived on the street for 36 years, claimed: “We will lose 80 per cent of our sea view, if it was only 10 to 15 per cent I wouldn’t object but this is huge.
“It’s like a container stuck on the roof of a bungalow, it has caused us so much stress.”
The controversial planning application, on Torbay's public database, garnered 19 complaints from 12 different people, and was already rejected once because of the "observation room's" size.
'OPPRESSIVE' DEVELOPMENT
But, it has now been approved after the planners did reduce the size, by thinning floors and ceilings.
Neighbour Kevin Salter, added: “The enlargement will result in significant loss of light into our bedroom and hallway.
Inside Camilla's £850k 'guilty pleasure' country pad - and Charles 'hates' it
It [the extension] looks like a shipping container planted on the roof."
David Wilson
“Having a terrace so close to our bedroom window will also invade our privacy the occupants will be able to see through into our bedroom, hallway and main bathroom.
“The side and rear elevations will also affect our health, wellbeing and privacy due to the oppressive nature the development will have on our small back garden.”
FURTHER ACTION
More residents who are outraged at the plans, retired GP Dr John Speake and wife Angela, are threatening to take things further.
John said: "We are considering taking it further, we can appeal to the ombudsman or request a judicial review. We believe we have a case."
Although the planning decision has sparked outrage among the community, the couple insisted neighbours aren't angry at the planners, they just want their concerns over loss of light and privacy to be heard.
In a written planning objection, Dr Speake penned: "The large volume and sheer mass of the additional floor would dominate our property.
"This overpowering effect would be exacerbated by the very close proximity of our dwellings.
"I concede that the addition of a balcony on the upper level would give a commanding view over Torbay.
"From the east side it would also give a commanding view into our living room.
"The effects of increased noise along with loss of privacy and natural light would undoubtedly impact on our mental health and wellbeing."
We will lose 80 per cent of our sea view, if it was only 10 to 15 per cent I wouldn’t object but this is huge."
Clive Jones
Mrs Speake added: “They are going to have a deck which will look right in on us.
"It’s a lovely area, we have lived here 15 years. Houses here have got a lovely view, I guess that’s what you’re paying for.
"We made our case in objections but it feels like the council disregarded the lot."
The applicants could not be reached for comment but in their application they said: “The overall scale of the proposal is in keeping with the general massing of the neighbouring properties.
“The eaves height of the proposed balcony is below that of the neighbouring dwelling.
"Also, the height of the building is significantly below the ridge height of the (other) neighbour.
“The first floor balcony will overlook the front of the property and as such will have no potential to overlook rear gardens.
“To the rear there is a large separation of a minimum of 15 metres from the rear windows of the first floor extension to the rear boundary and a total of 26 metres to the dwelling to the rear.
"Furthermore, this boundary is heavily planted which provides a good level of screening and therefore there is no overlooking to the rear.”
A spokesperson for Torbay Council said: “A revised planning application for 43 Thatcher Avenue was approved by Torbay Council’s Planning Committee at a meeting on Tuesday, 29 August. It had been deferred from a meeting in July in relation to two points which were resolved by the applicant.
“Members of the committee made their decision after being given full information about all the issues relating to the application in a report, with further details provided in answers to questions at the committee meeting.
“The committee members visited the site, and they also heard representations at the meeting. Our governance rules were followed throughout the process.
“The 3D model was discussed before and during the meeting. Only electronic images can accompany a registered speaker’s presentation. This is set out in the Local Code of Good Practice for planning in the council’s constitution.
“The speaker was advised of this a week before the meeting and was invited to provide a presentation including images of the model to appear on screens and on the broadcast live stream, and this happened at the meeting.
“The loss of views is not a matter that can be taken into account as it is not a material consideration under planning law.”
