Agenda item - BH2013/00900 - 13 Lloyd Road, Hove - Householder Planning

Erection of part single part two storey extension to the front, side and rear.

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE

Erection of part single part two storey extension to the front, side and rear.

(1)                   It was noted that this application had formed the subject of a site visit prior to the meeting.

(2)                   The Area Planning Manager introduced the application, and gave a presentation by reference to plans, photographs and elevational drawings; attention was also drawn to information on the Late List. The application sought to enlarge the property to create a ‘granny flat’ on the ground floor, and enlarge the living and bedroom space across the rest of the house. To achieve this the application sought to replicate the front gable creating a double fronted property increasing the overall street frontage. The proposed extension would be prominent to the south and north; Officers were of the view that there was scope for a sizeable extension, but felt that this needed to be subservient to the parent building to be more ‘polite’ and not harm the character of the area. This current application was considered overbearing and prominent; Officers were happy to continue discussions for a smaller two-storey extension. The application was recommend for refusal for the reasons set out in the report.

Public Speakers and Questions

(3)                   Mrs Dibsdall spoke in support of the application in her capacity as the owner and applicant. She explained that the extension was necessary to house her elderly mother, and the house was an ‘arts &crafts’ building and the proposed extension sought to retain this character with the extension blending seamlessly with the original house. The suggestions of a smaller more subservient extension were too hard to introduce, for structural reasons, and the proposed annex would provide enough independent living space for her elderly mother. All of the neighbours were in support of the scheme, and in particular the neighbours who would potentially be most affected. The scheme had been designed to protect privacy and the extension was considered modest.

(4)                   Councillor Carol Theobald asked if a garage would be retained elsewhere on the site, and Mrs Dibsdall confirmed it would not.

Questions for Officers

(5)                   Councillor Davey asked about some sort of compromise in relation to the application, and in response Officers explained that an alternative scheme had been proposed by the Case Officer; however, it was the prerogative of the applicant to apply for their preferred scheme, and the Committee had to consider the application before them.

(6)                   It was confirmed for Councillor Carol Theobald that the side of the proposed extension had two high level roof lights and a secondary window into a bedroom. Following a further query from Councillor Hyde it was explained that the neighbouring property these windows would face had no side windows.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(7)                   Councillor Carol Theobald noted that the house was on one of the largest plots; all of the houses in that area were quite different and there was room for an extension. She stated she would be voting against the Officer recommendation.

(8)                   Councillor Hyde echoed these comments and stated that she did not feel the house was of any ‘great design’ and noted the suggested alteration to make it subservient would be too expensive. She felt that the proposed extension would give the impression that the building had been built in that form, rather than looking like a later addition; reference was made to the NPPF and the presumption to approve development; as such she would be voting against the Officer recommendation.

(9)                   Councillor Randall stated his view that the extension would improve the appearance of the house, and would help to tidy up the scruffy looking garage. He would be voting against the Officer recommendation.

(10)               Councillor Mac Cafferty noted there was an emerging SPD due to be approved that would help to clarify matters in relation to such extensions.

(11)               A vote was taken and the Officer recommendation to refuse was not carried on a vote of 6 to 5. Councillor Hyde proposed reasons for approval and these were seconded by Councillor Cox; a short adjournment was then held to allow Councillor Mac Cafferty, Councillor Hyde, Councillor Cox, the Deputy Development Control Manager, the Senior Solicitor and the Area Planning Manager to draft the reasons for approval in full. These reasons were then read to the Committee, and it was agreed they reflected what had been put forward by Members. A recorded vote was then taken with the proposed reasons for approval and Councillors Jones, Hyde, Cox, Carol Theobald, Wealls and Randall voted that planning be granted and Councillors: Mac Cafferty, Carden, Davey, Gilbey and Hamilton voted that permission be refused.

6.9                  RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken the Officer recommendation to refuse into consideration, but resolves to GRANT planning permission for the reason and subject to conditions, set out below:

        i.                 The proposed development is acceptable in terms of massing, form, scale and its forward position and is not detrimental to neighbouring properties in terms of amenity. The proposed development is in keeping with the mixture of styles in Lloyd Road and is an improvement to the current design of the existing property.

Conditions:

        i.                 The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.  

Reason: To ensure that the Local Planning Authority retains the right to review unimplemented permissions.

      ii.                 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved drawings listed below.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

    iii.                 The external finishes of the development hereby permitted shall match in material, colour, style, bonding and texture those of the existing building.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development in the interests of the visual amenities of the area and to comply with policies QD1 and QD14 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

Additional Informative:

        i.                 The applicant is advised that planning permission has been granted on the basis that the granny annex is ancillary to the dwelling and that its use as a separate residential dwelling would require further planning permission.

Note: Councillor Littman was not present at the Committee.