Agenda item - BH2013/02616 - Land rear of 285 Dyke Road, Hove - Full Planning

Erection of 1no three bedroom bungalow with access from The Droveway.

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE

Erection of 1no three bedroom bungalow with access from The Droveway.

(1)                   The Area Planning Manager, Nicola Hurley, introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to plans, photographs and elevational drawings. The site related to the rear garden of 285 Dyke Road which was a large three storey building divided into three flats. Permission was sought for a detached bungalow; a similar type of rear garden development been granted permission at no. 283; however, it was noted that this site had a series of fundamental differences. Considerations related to the design, the siting; the impact on neighbouring amenity and the impact on highways and sustainable transport. The proposed bungalow would be close to the boundaries of the plot, and it was noted that the proposal differed from the implemented permission at no. 283 as the garden was smaller and the bungalow closer to the host property; the remainder of the garden was small – leading Officers to the view that the proposal was over-dominant. Concern was also expressed that there would a significant lack of privacy for the future occupier of the proposed bungalow. For the reasons in the report the application was recommended for refusal.

Public Speakers and Questions

(2)                   Ms Julie Cattell spoke in support of the application in her capacity as the agent acting on behalf of the applicant. She stated that the design and bulk form would be similar to the neighbouring bungalow; the standard of accommodation was good, and would meet lifetime homes standards, and minor issues raised by the Case Officer could be resolved. In relation to the issue of overdeveloped it was argued that the site coverage was comparable for the area, and the distances between the building and the boundary were also comparable with the development at no. 283. In relation to overlooking it was noted that the back to back distance was less than 20 metres, and the Committee had approved schemes with similar distances.

(3)                   In response to Councillor Carol Theobald it was confirmed by Ms Cattell that the land sloped away at the rear of the plot.

Questions for Officers

(4)                   It was confirmed for Councillor Hyde that the remainder of the host building’s garden would be 7.6 metres.

(5)                   In response to Councillor Davey it was confirmed that the site was greenfield and the applicant had confirmed they were able to meet Code Level 5 for sustainable homes, and the planning authority had no reason to doubt this submission. It was confirmed for Councillor Cox that if the applicant felt they were unable to meet Code Level 5 then they would have to apply to vary the condition.

(6)                   It was confirmed for Councillor Hamilton that, whilst the Area Planning Manager had no evidence to confirm, it looked likely the development at no. 283 was also this type of back garden development.

(7)                   It was confirmed in response to Councillor Gilbey that the front door did not face out directly onto the access area, and the windows that would be overlooked by the property to the south were a kitchen and a toilet.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(8)                   Councillor Hyde stated that her initial reading of the proposal had changed following the site visit where it had become clear that the garden of the host building was shorter than that of no. 283; at the visit the size of the plot had been measured and it was evident that it was small. Councillor Hyde went on to say that the proposal would be of detriment to the host building; however, the plot could potentially accommodate a smaller building with more garden space. It was also felt that the loss of the garden would change the character of the host building, and as such, she would be voting in support of the Officer recommendation.

(9)                   Councillor Carol Theobald echoed these comments and added that it was clear to her from the site visit that there would be little garden left for the host property; she added that the proposal was over-development and was particularly concerned in relation to overlooking. She stated that the Officer recommendation was correct and she would be supporting it.

(10)               Councillor Gilbey also added that there was a balcony at first floor level which could potentially make the overlooking issues worse.

(11)               Councillor Hamilton stated that what was proposed was too much for the site, and referenced an application at no. 287 which Officers confirmed was for an ancillary building.

(12)               A vote was taken and planning permission was refused on a vote of 6 to 2 with 2 abstentions.

105.5    RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration the recommendation and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in paragraph 11 and resolves to REFUSE planning permission for the reasons set out below:

Reasons for Refusal:

              i.           The scheme, by reason of its scale, excessive footprint and positioning would represent an inappropriate and unsympathetic addition and would appear as an overdevelopment of the site. The scheme is therefore considered to be contrary to policies QD1, QD2, QD3 and HO4 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

            ii.           Having regard to the close proximity of the proposed bungalow to the host property, the west facing windows and roof terrace at no.285 Dyke Road would directly overlook the east facing windows and garden of the proposed bungalow. This is not considered to be an appropriate relationship and would result in a loss of amenity and a poor standard of accommodation. The scheme is therefore considered to be contrary to policy QD27 and HO5 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

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 applications which are for sustainable development where possible.

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