A mum who has spent four years trying to stop houses being built in a neighbouring garden says she is devastated they have been given the green light.
Residents in Lovedean have been battling to stop gardens at 41 to 49 Frogmore Lane being developed.
The first proposal for the land was refused by a government inspector on appeal four years ago.
Another scaled-down plan for four three-bedroom homes was refused at a planning meeting in May, with the reasons for refusal as ‘undesirable back land development’ that was cramped and out-of-character.
But on Thursday night Havant Borough Council’s planning committee agreed it could go ahead.
Jo Parker lives in Yoells Crescent, which backs on to the gardens. She said: ‘I’m absolutely heartbroken.
This was our dream home. We bought it for the peace and quiet and the big back garden for the kids. Now that’s all being wreckedJo Parker
‘They are going to be closer to our property than anywhere else. It will be 22m from our back door.
‘It is going to overlook us and they will be able to look directly into our lounge.
‘This was our dream home. We bought it for the peace and quiet and the big back garden for the kids. Now that’s all being wrecked. It’s disgusting the council has given permission.’
Neighbour Nicola Nestor, of Willowside, said she felt the same.
The 35-year-old mum-of-two said: ‘I feel Havant Borough Council has let down all of the residents who objected to it.
‘Hundreds of new houses are being built in Waterlooville and Havant, so why do we need these here? A lot of people have been upset for the sake of four new houses.’
The decision has brought to an end four years of campaigning.
Councillor David Keast was on the panel on which five members voted for the plans. He was one of two members who abstained.
He said: ‘It was a difficult decision. At least half of the committee were different to the previous one. They looked at it in the cold light of day rather than with a lot of the emotion that went previously.
‘I can understand the feelings of the residents, but it would be hard to defend a refusal to the government’s planning inspector because, in legal terms, the application had no grounds for refusal.’