Agenda item - BH2013/02368 - 12 Court Ord Road Brighton - Full Planning Permission

Erection of extension to front and rear elevations to facilitate conversion of roof space, incorporating new front porch - Juliet balcony to rear and dormers to south west and north east elevations.

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE

Erection of extension to front and rear elevations to facilitate conversion of roof space, incorporating new front porch - Juliet balcony to rear and dormers to south west and north east elevations.

(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 photographs, plans and elevational drawings. The application site related to a detached property with a hipped roof and a flat roof extension. It was noted that a similar application had been refused early in the year under delegated authority in relation to the design, bulk, overlooking and loss of privacy; the major change to this proposal was the removal of a rear terrace and changes to the proposed dormers. The existing bungalow was modest in size, and the application sought consent for significant alternations and front extension adding bulk; it was the view of Officers that this would damage the visual amenity of the building and detrimentally impact on the street scene. There was particular concern in relation to the size, depth and bulk of the proposed dormers; as well as being poorly designed and not relating properly to the fenestration below. For the reasons set out in the report the application was recommended for refusal.

Public Speakers and Questions

(3)                   Ms Julie Daniels spoke in support of the application in her capacity as the applicant and stated that the applicant was seeking to extend a family home as it was not currently big enough; the family did not want to move out of the area and Ms Daniels’ children attended local schools. Since the previous refusal work had been undertaken to make the scheme more acceptable, and none of the immediate neighbours had objected – there were also letters of support. It was not possible to reduce the size of the roof extension any further without reducing the size of the loft bedrooms. The scheme proposed more suitable materials, and it had been designed by a local architect who had ensured there would be no impact on the streetscene. It was acknowledged that the house would look larger at first floor level due to the conversion. In closing Ms Daniels reiterated that the application would allow more room for her family; neighbours were in support of the scheme and she hoped the Committee could support the application.

Questions for Officers

(4)                   In response to Councillor Theobald the existing and proposed plans were confirmed.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(5)                   Councillor Theobald stated that she had some sympathy with the resident, but she felt that the proposed design would look overly dominant, and felt it could be acceptable if it were made a little smaller as she did not have any issue with the rear of the design.

(6)                   Councillor Gilbey echoed these comments, and stated that she could not support the application due to bulk at the front.

(7)                   Councillor Jones also stated he had sympathy with the applicant, but he agreed with the position taken by Officers.

(8)                   Councillor Littman stated that he understood the point in relation to design and size, but noted that the neighbours had not objected to the scheme.

(9)                   Councillor Robins asked about the personal circumstances of the applicant, and the Senior Solicitor advised that personal circumstances could be capable of being a material planning consideration in exceptional circumstances.

(10)               Before a vote was taken the Deputy Development Control Manager reiterated that the reasons for refusal related to the visual amenity and the impact on the streetscene, not the impact on neighbours.

(11)               A vote was taken and planning permission was refused on a vote of 8 in favour with 3 abstentions.

80.6       RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out and resolves to REFUSE planning permission for the reason set out below:

Reason for Refusal

              i.           The proposed development, by virtue of its design, size, form and massing would result in visually intrusive and bulky additions to the property, which would be unsympathetic to the design of the existing modest chalet bungalow and as a result would be of detriment to the visual amenities of the parent property and the wider area. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies contrary to policies QD1 and QD14 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan and SPD12 Design Guide for Extensions and Alterations.

Informatives:

              i.           In accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy SS1 of the Brighton & Hove City Plan Part One (submission document) the approach to making a decision on this planning application has been to apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development. The Local Planning Authority seeks to approve planning.

Note: Councillor Hyde was not present during the consideration and vote on this application (see minute 75.2).