Agenda item - BH2013/03496 - 187 Dyke Road, Hove - Full Planning

Erection of two storey extension to replace existing single storey extension and terrace.

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE

Erection of two storey extension to replace existing single storey extension and terrace.

(1)                   The Area Planning Manager introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to photographs plans and elevational drawings. The application sought a two storey rear extension, and the application was largely the same as a previously refused scheme; aside from a small reduction to the proposed depth of the extension. The extension would occupy a significant space in the rear garden. The main considerations related to the design and appearance; the impact on amenity and highways matters. The application proposed a significant addition to the bulk and massing; did not integrate well with the parent building; was box like and the roof did not conform with the existing eaves line. Due to the scale of the proposal there would also be an impact on neighbouring amenity, and the application was recommended for refusal for the reasons set out in the report.

Public Speakers and Questions

(2)                   Mr Luke Carter spoke in support of the application in his capacity as the agent acting on behalf of the applicant. He stated that the application sought to provide additional office space for the business that had operated at the site for 14 years. The extension would allow for an additional 30 staff, as well as letting the business expand further. Reference was made to the need for employment space in the Draft City Plan which was in sustainable locations. It was considered the scheme addressed the reasons for refusal and the only remaining issue was visual impact, but the views from the street were oblique. If the application were refused then the business would need to relocate and the existing building redeveloped as a residential development; it had been difficult to find an alternative space and the likelihood was the business would have to move outside of the city. In closing it was added that business wanted to stay in its existing location as the majority of the staff were local residents.

(3)                   In response to Councillor Davey the applicant confirmed that views of the proposed extension from the street.

Questions for Officers

(4)                   It was confirmed for Councillor Pissaridou that the neighbouring property had windows to the rear that would be affected by the proposals. The scheme also proposed no additional parking above the existing 4 spaces.

(5)                   In response to Councillor Duncan it was confirmed that if the Committee were minded to grant the application they could attached conditions in relation to a travel plan.

(6)                   It was confirmed for Councillor Hyde that the applicant had not entered into any pre-application discussion with the local planning authority. It was also confirmed by the Head of Development Control that there was no objection in principle to an extension of the building, and Officers were open to discussing alternative schemes.

(7)                   Councillor Mac Cafferty stated that the Committee supported the wish of the business to stay in the current location, but needed to ensure that the scheme to extend the building was appropriate.

(8)                   Councillor Davey echoed this comment and added that he felt the bulk was too much, but he was sympathetic to the position of the applicant; with this in mind he would support the Officer recommendation.

(9)                   Councillor Jones stated he was surprised that there had not been more discussion with Officers, and he felt the application would overdevelop the site. On balance he felt that an alternative application could seek a compromise position.

(10)               Councillor Wells noted that although the scheme was bulky the impact was minimal from the street, and the scheme only impacted one other property. He was concerned with the business leaving the area and the loss of employment, and for these reasons he would not support the Officer recommendation.

(11)               A vote was taken and the Officer recommendation to refuse planning permission was agreed on a vote of 8 to 3 with 1 abstention.

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

Reasons for Refusal:

              i.           The extension by reason of its scale, massing, bulk, site coverage, materials and detailing is considered poorly designed, and an overdevelopment of the site, and would have a seriously harmful impact upon the character and appearance of the building to be extended and the visual amenity of the area. This is contrary to policies QD1, QD2 and QD14 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan

            ii.           The extension by reason of its siting, scale and massing would have an unduly harmful and dominating impact upon the amenities of adjacent occupiers resulting in a loss of outlook, increased sense of enclosure, overshadowing and an overbearing impact. This is contrary to policies QD14 and QD27 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.