A DISABLED resident who wanted to add a ground-floor extension to an historic beachfront property to help with mobility problems was refused planning permission after also seeking  a first-floor roof terrace.

The proposed extension to the centuries-old building at Fisherrow was turned down by East Lothian Council planning officers, who argued that the second-storey addition went beyond the needs of someone with mobility issues.

And their decision was backed unanimously at a meeting of the council’s planning committee last week, where one objector warned that the proposed extension would “more than double” the footprint of the home.

The plans for the property on Promenade featured a bedroom, wet room and sitting room on the ground level, stretching nine metres into the front garden, with an addition bedroom and bathroom on the first floor leading onto a roof terrace.

However a neighbour argued that the modern extension would look “ridiculous” next to the larger, older house the property adjoins. The older house has been converted into several properties over the years.

He said: “The original house is over 300 years old and the extension [the smaller, adjoining property] they are talking about developing is over 240 years old.

“This is not a new property. It was there before most of Fisherrow was built and was a landmark on a charter in 1742.

“It is ridiculous. . . it does not fit with the surrounding properties.”

Councillor Andrew Forrest, ward member for Musselburgh, called in the application for debate, pointing out to committee members that the house, while old, was surrounded by a wide range of housing, including four-storey flats overlooking it.

He said: “I do not think it is out of kilter with the other buildings.”

Iain McFarlane, the council’s head of planning, told the committee that the applicant had been advised that while a single-storey extension on the site was not a “shoe-in”, it was more likely to be given consent than the two-storey proposal.

He said: “Much of the issues are with the two-storey extension, which goes beyond the requirements; however, they have ignored our advice.”

The committee voted unanimously to reject the application.