Agenda item - BH2013/01893 - 58 Dean Court Road, Rottingdean, Brighton - Householder Planning Permission

Erection of two storey side and rear extension with a loft conversion incorporating roof extensions, rooflights and associated external alterations.

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE

Erection of two storey side and rear extension with a loft conversion incorporating roof extensions, rooflights and associated external alterations.

(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 photographs plans and elevational drawings. The application related to a two storey detached property on Dean Court Road, and sought permission for an extension and roof lights. The main considerations related to the design of the extension and the impact on amenity. It was considered that this application was sympathetic; however, the overall depth was still considered excessive and harmful to the character of the building; as was the overwhelming scale and bulk of the proposals. Whilst revisions to the scheme had reduced some of the height and bulk it still stood that Officers were of the view that the proposals would be overly dominant and overbearing. For the reasons set out in the report the application was recommended for refusal.

Public Speakers and Questions

(3)                   Ms Ganding spoke in her capacity as the agent on behalf of the applicant Mr Harding. She stated that the application sought an extension the owner’s family home. The family had three children, and the current arrangements were not sufficient for their needs; the family loved living in the area and all the children went to local schools, and enjoyed the access to local facilities. The accommodation needed to be bought up to a family standard, and since the refusal of the previous application close work had been undertaken with neighbours to overcome their concerns, and the current application had no objection from them. The scale of the roof had been reduced, and it was considered the harm would be reduced through the provision of a mature boundary. The only part of the proposals that would be visible from the front of the property would be the side utility area, but this would be set back and subordinate. The applicant accepted that the proposals would increase the depth, but the overall increase was not huge and the neighbouring house was set forward which helped to obscure the view. It was reiterated that the extension was to accommodate the family; there was no objection from the immediate neighbour and the extension would fit in with the surrounding area.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(4)                   Councillor Hyde stated that she shared the concerns in relation to the impact on neighbouring amenity; however, she highlighted the mature boundary of shrubs and trees. There would be no impact on the street scene, as the extension was at the rear, and she stated that the neighbouring property (no .56) appeared to be more out of keeping with the rest of the road generally. Councillor Hyde reiterated some of the points made by the applicant’s agent in relation to the needs of the family, and stated that she believed this was a good planning application. There would be no impact on neighbouring amenity; the property was not overlooked, and suitable amendments had already been made to the scheme. She stated she would be voting against the Officer recommendation.

(5)                   Councillor Gilbey noted that there was space at the rear of the property; however, she did not feel the vegetation would create sufficient screening; the property would protrude significantly at the rear and it would impact on neighbouring amenity. She stated she felt the application was overdevelopment of the site.

(6)                   Councillor Wells stated that the street was a mix of different building; there were no objections from neighbours and he would be voting against the Officer recommendation.

(7)                   Councillor Philips stated she would be voting against the Officer recommendation; she considered that the applicant had worked closely with their neighbours and she saw no reason to refuse.

(8)                   Councillor Ann Norman noted that there recently been two similar types of proposals in her own ward which had worked well; she noted there were no objections and the applicant hard worked well with both their neighbours and the Council.

(9)                   Councillor Cox stated that he liked the design; he was not so taken with the arguments in relation in the neighbour objections, but felt the proposals were good.

(10)               The Head of Development Control noted the credentials of the architect were not material planning consideration, and that the mature boundary could in future be removed and it was necessary to protect amenity for future occupants, as well as current ones. The Senior Solicitor noted that personal circumstances were capable of being given weight by the Committee, but these should be considered only in extreme circumstances.

(11)               Councillor Jones noted that he saw the compelling case for the proposals; however, as he had concerns in relation to scale of the extension he would abstain from the vote.

(12)               A vote was taken and the Officer recommendation to refuse was not carried on a vote of 3 in support; with 5 against and 3 abstentions. Councillor Hyde proposed reasons for approval and these were seconded by Councillor Wells. 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 and Councillors: Hyde, Cox, Phillips, Ann Norman and Wells voted that planning permission be granted; Councillors: Mac Cafferty, Gilbey and Robins voted that it be refused and Councillors: Jones, Carden and Davey abstained from the vote.

56.7       RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration the Officer recommendation to refuse, but resolves to GRANT the application for the reason set out below.

        i.                 The scale, design, siting and bulk of the proposed development would comply with policies QD14 and QD27 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan 2005. In particular there is no adverse impact on neighbouring amenity and no overlooking and the boundary is planted with mature shrubs and trees. Moreover there is no detrimental impact on the street scene and no properties to the rear with views of the rear extension. Some small amount of weight is given to the personal circumstances of the applicant.

Note: Councillor Wakefield was not present at the meeting.