Agenda item - BH2013/01938 - 52 Ainsworth Avenue, Brighton - Householder Planning Permission

Erection of extension to first floor including dormer and window to front, windows to sides and Juliet balconies to rear.

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE

Erection of extension to first floor including dormer and window to front, windows to sides and Juliet balconies to rear.

(1)                   The Area Planning Manager, Nicola Hurley, introduced this application and gave a presentation by reference to plans, photographs and elevational drawings. The application sought planning permission for a first floor extension to raise the roof of the property. The main considerations related to the impact on the character and appearance on the street scene and the impact on residential amenity. Officers felt that the proposals would alter the character and appearance by creating a much more bulky building which was considered out of scale. Officers had concerns with the sides of the property; particularly where the roof pitched to each side and the form would appear incongruous. The form, detail and bulk of the rest of the design was not considered to have an impact on neighbouring amenity, but was not acceptable in terms of design. For the reasons set out in the report the application was recommended for refusal.

Public Speakers and Questions

(2)                   Mr Childs spoke in support of the application in his capacity as the applicant. He stated that he believed an error had been made in the consideration of the application and asked the Committee to take a more reasoned view. The proposals were considered to be in line with guidance, and the additional gables were design to maintain continuity in the roof form. Mr Childs stated that the application was for a simple remodelling of the existing roof structure, and permission had been granted in 2009 for a development across the road with a much greater impact on amenity. In closing Mr Childs added that he had support for the scheme from his neighbours.

Questions for Officers

(3)                   Councillor Sykes asked for Officers to comment on Mr Childs view that something had gone wrong during the application process. In response the Area Planning Manager explained that the Case Officer had left the Council during the lifetime of the application; however, this was not considered out of the ordinary and the departing Case Officer had completed the Committee report before they had left.

(4)                   It was confirmed for Councillor Ken Norman that the land at no. 55 opposite was on slightly higher ground.

(5)                   Councillor Gilbey asked for more information on some of the wording in the report in relation to the ‘existing harmony of the setting.’ In response the Area Planning Manager explained that there was concern that the when the bulk of the property, when viewed particularly from the side, would increase the visual massing of the roof form. It was also noted that the application proposed additional gables and flat roof expanse whereas the area traditionally had pitched roofs.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(6)                   Councillor Cox stated that he had understood the point the Case Officer was trying to make when he had visited the property on the site visit; however, the overall context of the wider area was very mixed in terms of the design of the houses. He was not of the view that what was being proposed was out of keeping, and the applicant had gone to lengths to ensure the proposals would fit in. He stated that he would not support the Officer recommendation.

(7)                   Councillor Carol Theobald stated that she agreed with Councillor Cox in relation to the varied nature of the street scene, and she did not feel the application would be detrimental as many houses in the area already had large extensions.

(8)                   Councillor Wells stated that he could not see an issue with the application, although he would have preferred a barn end rather than a gable, he did not feel the roof form was incongruous, and would be voting against the Officer recommendation.

(9)                   Councillor Gilbey stated that she agreed with Councillor Wells, and that there was mix of buildings in the area; she added that she would not support the Officer recommendation.

(10)               A vote was taken and the recommendation to refuse was not carried on a unanimous vote against the recommendation. Councillor Cox proposed reasons for refusal and these were seconded by Councillor Wells. The reasons for approval were then read to the Committee and it was agreed that they reflected what had been put forward by Members. A recorded vote was then taken and Councillors: Jones, Ken Norman, Carden, Cox, Duncan, Gilbey, Hamilton, Sykes, Carol Theobald and Wells voted that planning permission be granted.

68.10    RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration the Officer recommendation, but resolves to be GRANT planning permission for the reason set out below, and authority was delegated to the Head of Development Control to agree conditions

Reason for Approval:

              i.           The proposed development is of a good design and is not out of keeping, or too incongruous, with the variety of housing styles found in Ainsworth Avenue. Moreover the proposed development has no adverse impact by way of overshadowing.

Note: Councillors Littman and Wakefield were not present at the meeting.