Agenda item - BH2013/01482 - 68 Crescent Drive South, Brighton - Full Planning Permission

Erection of front and rear extensions, loft conversion incorporating raising of ridge height, hip to gable roof extension, installation of rear balcony and rooflights.

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE

Erection of front and rear extensions, loft conversion incorporating raising of ridge height, hip to gable roof extension, installation of rear balcony and rooflights.

(1)                   It was noted that this application had been 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. The application sought extensions to a bungalow to create a two storey property which would have a gable to the front and rear to accommodate two bedrooms both with en-suite facilities. Currently the front of the property had a low level hipped roof, and the proposal would be higher than the line of the existing pitched roof; adding additional bulk. The existing single storey conservatory at the rear would be replaced with a single extension to bring out the gabled roof further. It was considered that the application would create a huge amount of increased bulk to form the substantial two-storey property. It was noted that the neighbouring property at no. 74 had also been extended, the building was larger and the extended roof was hipped away from the road; whereas the proposed extension would not follow the existing roofline. The properties on the other side of the street were much more substantial but they were of a different design; more set back and not read as part of the streetscape including the application property. Officers were of the view that the application would change the property so fundamentally it would be detrimental to the character of the street scene. The principal of some extension might be acceptable but it was felt the potential impact of this application was unacceptable in terms of the impact on the street scene because of the high gable. There had also been a previous application for a very similar scheme with more rooflights that had been refused under delegated powers, and was currently the subject of an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate The application was recommended for refusal for the reasons set out in the report.

Public Speakers and Questions

(3)                   Miss Lucy Clifton-Sprigg spoke in support of the application in her capacity as the applicant and explained that the application sought to enlarge her family home to provide more space. The first application had been refused and the number of rooflights had been reduced to address the reasons for refusal. It was possible to create a large extension to the property under permitted development rights, but this option had not been pursued as it was felt it would lead to an unsightly property. The existing streetscene was varied; with a combination of large properties and smaller bungalows, and several of the bungalows had been extended in a similar way to what was set out in the application. Miss Clifton-Sprigg also explained that she has consulted neighbours and received no objections, and the application did not create any over-looking or loss of daylight for neighbouring properties. The application had been mindful of Planning Policy, and it felt the proposal could work within it.

(4)                   Councillor Hyde referenced the visual aids provided by the applicant during her presentation, and sought clarification on the location of the extended properties shown.

Questions for Officers

(5)                   Councillor Hyde asked for more information on the large extension to the neighbouring bungalow, and it was explained that the extension had been granted permission in 2003, and the decision predating the currently adopted Local Plan and the policies contained within it.

(6)                   Councillor Gilbey noted that the road was not as flat as it appeared in the photographs, and the difference in ridge height between the proposed scheme and the extended property was clarified.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(7)                   Councillor Hyde stated that she did not agree with the recommendation, and there were a number of examples in close proximity where the roofs had been raised; there was also a block of flats a few properties further along the street. She acknowledged that the proposed roof was large, but felt that this was still appropriate given the context of similar extension in the street. She stated that she would be voting against the Officer recommendation.

(8)                   Councillor Carol Theobald noted that were already examples of this sort of extension in the street; she noted there were no objections from neighbours and she could see no problem with the scheme.

(9)                   Councillor Mac Cafferty explained that he agreed with some of what Councillor Hyde had mentioned; acknowledging that were different roof forms in the street, but also noting that the policies used to justify refusal were successfully upheld at appeals.

(10)               A vote was taken and the Officer recommendation to refuse was not carried on a vote of 4 to 4 with 1 abstention; as the vote was tied the Chair exercised his casting vote to defeat the Officer recommendation. Councillor Hyde proposed reasons for approval and these were seconded by Councillor Carol Theobald; a short adjournment was then held to allow Councillor Mac Cafferty, Councillor Hyde, Councillor Carol Theobald, 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: Mac Cafferty, Hyde, Cox and Carol Theobald voted that planning permission be granted; Councillors: Carden, Davey, Gilbey and Hamilton voted that planning permission be refused and Councillor Jones abstained from the vote; as the vote was tied the Chair exercised his casting vote to carry the motion and the application was granted.

18.6       RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration the Officer recommendation to refuse, but resolves to GRANT planning permission for the reasons set out below:

Reasons For Approval:

        i.                 The proposed development is in a locality which has a mixed form of development in terms of styles, size and design and a variety of building lines. The proposed development does not cause material harm to the street scene.

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.                 No development shall take place until samples of all materials (including colour of render, paintwork and colourwash) to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

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