Agenda item - BH2013/02475 - 33 Redhill Drive, Brighton - Full Planning Permission

Erection of two storey rear extension.

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Erection of two storey rear extension

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

(2)                   The Senior Team Planner, Kate Brocklebank, introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to photographs, plans and elevational drawings. The application site related to a six bedroom house on Redhill Drive that had been extended in the past, and the garage and workshop had been converted into bedrooms with a bathroom and kitchenette. The house was currently in C4 use, and the application sought the erection of a part single and part two-storey extension to add further bedrooms at the first floor level. The extension was considered appropriate, and not likely to cause significant harm. For the reasons set out in the report the application was recommended for approval.

Public Speakers and Questions

(3)                   Mr John Lyall spoke in objection to the application in his capacity as a local resident, and stated that the proposed extension would make the building higher and would project significantly beyond the house line making it very intrusive. The extension would also cut out light to the back room of his house, and not be in accordance with the 45 degree rule. The paving area and planting in his garden would also be affected. The number of existing additions to the house were noted, and it was stated there would now be 8 bedrooms in the house and the original footprint of the house had doubled. Other neighbours in the street had also had extensions, and there were no objections as they were considered to be in-keeping. It was also noted that there had been noise issues in relation to the unsociable hours that some of the existing work had been carried out. The applicant had also told Mr Lyall that he had permission for the extension, but when Mr Lyall had checked this had not been the case.

(4)                   Councillor Ann Norman spoke in her capacity as the Local Ward Councillor and stated the property was already large and developed, and if the extension were granted it would have a significant impact on no. 29 Redhill Drive. If approved it would be bulky and intrusive, and rooms at the rear of no. 29 would lose their outlook. The garden of no. 29 also housed a number of rare plants and birds and it was felt that this wildlife could be affected by the proposal. Councillor Ann Norman noted that she felt the application was contrary to Local Plan policies QD1, QD2 & QD14.

(5)                   In response to a question from Councillor Deane it was explained by Councillor Ann Norman that a number of the areas where the birds nested where close to the boundary with the application site.

(6)                   Mr Abe Moshin spoke in support of the application in his capacity as the agent for the applicant and stated that the Committee should heed the advice of the Case Officer. The application would provide additional bedrooms and a study as the applicant wanted all three of their children to have bedrooms at the first floor. The area downstairs would be used as two bedrooms for foreign students and an office, and it was eventually intended that the area would be used as an annex for an elderly relative. The extension was in compliance with the 45 degree rule and there would no additional demand on parking. The house had a lawful use as an HMO (C4) and any change to the use would require planning permission. The proposal was considered to be in-keeping and compliant with policy, and generally tidy up the appearance of the rear of the property.

(7)                   In response to Councillor Hyde it was explained by Mr Moshin that he had advised his client to cease works until planning permission had been obtained; Mr Moshin was unaware if his client had consulted with neighbours in relation to the application.

(8)                   It was confirmed for Councillor Randall that a total of seven would live in the house once the works were completed; this included the applicant’s family and two foreign students.

Questions for Officers

(9)                   It was confirmed for Councillor Cox that the use of the extension as an annex for a relative would not require planning permission.

(10)               It was confirmed for Councillor Wells that the 45 degree rule applied to habitable rooms, and the extension was within this guidance.

(11)               In response to Councillor Gilbey the Senior Team Planner explained that limited weight could be given to the type of wildlife in the neighbouring garden as, whilst there would be an impact, it was not so severe so as to cause harm.

(12)               It was confirmed for Councillor Hyde that the completed building would have 8 bedrooms, and this would be an approximate doubling in size of the original building.

(13)               Councillor Deane asked about the building activities at the weekend, and in response it was noted there were powers under Environmental Health legislation that could properly address these concerns.

(14)               In was confirmed for Councillor Hyde that the impact of the neighbouring patio had been assessed, but it was the view of the Case Officer that it was not so significant to cause harm as there was a north-south orientation such that the whole area was not affected.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(15)               Councillor Wells stated that the extension would help to tidy up the rear of the property, and his concerns in relation to the 45 degree had been addressed adequately.

(16)               A vote was taken and planning permission was granted on a vote of 9 to 2.

92.3       RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in paragraph 11 and resolves to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report.

              Note: Councillor Ken Norman was not present during the consideration and vote on this application (see minute 87.2).