Agenda item - BH2013/02364 - 4 Bennett Road, Brighton - Householder Planning Permission

Retention of enlarged rear porch to replace pre-existing, incorporating external steps to garden level (Part Retrospective).

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Retention of enlarged rear porch to replace pre-existing, incorporating external steps to garden level (Part Retrospective).

(1)                   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 two-storey mid-terrace property, and the application was part-retrospective for the replacement of the porch and steps to the rear garden. The application followed refusal for the existing structure which was dismissed at appeal; however, the inspector had noted that obscure glazing could mitigate harm from the door and the windows. Replacement was also sought for the porch structure and the steps; rather than the raised platform. In order to address the remaining issues conditions were sought for obscure glazing on the door and windows and the removal of the raised platform; with a three month window for compliance. For the reasons set out in the report the application was recommended for approval.

Public Speakers and Questions

(2)                   Mr Roger Wheeler spoke in objection to the application in his capacity a local resident. He stated that he felt his neighbours were in a very unfortunate situation, and he was sympathetic that they had been wrongly advised by their builder that the alterations did not require planning permission. An ‘ugly’ porch had been constructed from green untreated timber, and reference was made to the original decision and reason for refusal. Mr Wheeler added that the proposal was now twice the size, and had destroyed the outlook from the window in his property, and he was of the view that neither the Case Officer nor the inspector had been able to make an informed view. Changing the direction of the steps would not make a difference, and he felt the original decision should stand as the planning process was being abused.

(3)                   Mrs Helen Lyons spoke in support of the application in her capacity as the applicant. She stated that in May 2012 there had been a serious leak in the dining room of her property, and it was necessary to replace the render; at the same time the decision was made to change the porch and the dangerous steps. At this point they had spoken with the Planning Authority and taken advice on the size of development that would need permission; they had informed their neighbour, and also had their builder replace a section of their guttering for free. After the work was completed they were told they needed to seek planning permission, and after the first refusal they were told an appeal could run alongside a new planning application. Officers had reviewed the situation, and felt there was no harm caused from the outlook to their dining room, and the structure did not appear to be overbearing. It was noted that Mrs Lyons had always had a view into the neighbouring property, and she was happy to obscure the windows and door as requested. There was also an increased view into her kitchen from the neighbours if they were to put the steps back as they had been without the raised decking.

Questions for Officers

(4)                   It was confirmed for Councillor Davey that the inspector had agreed the overlooking could be mitigated by the obscured glazing, but the raised decking could not be mitigated, and the application included the removal of this.

(5)                   It was confirmed for Councillor Mac Cafferty that the view of the inspector was very clear, and a contrary decision was very unlikely to be upheld at appeal.

(6)                   A vote was taken and planning permission was granted unanimously.

92.4       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.