Agenda item - BH2013/03886 - 16 Waldegrave Road, Brighton - Householder Planning Consent

Erection of a single storey rear infill extension.

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE

Erection of a single storey rear infill extension.

(1)                   The Senior Planning Officer, Guy Everest, introduced the report and gave a presentation by reference to photographs, plans and elevational drawings. The application site related to a two storey semi-detached building with a staggered footprint. Permission was sought for a single storey rear infill extension, and it was noted that the property sat at a greater height then the neighbouring house due to the change in ground levels. The application was recommended for refusal for the reasons set out in the report.

Public Speaker(s)

(2)                   Ms Carol Grant spoke in support of the application in her capacity as the agent; she stated that the main concerns in the report related to the design and the impact on the conservation area and neighbouring property. She referenced SPD12 and stated that often where this policy had been challenged at appeal the inspector had been ruling in favour of applicants. The glazed bi-folding doors sought to adhere with policy by creating a modern lightweight approach that allowed the original form of the house to remain legible. It was considered that the form was in compliance, and to refuse would be contrary to policy. The extension would have a neutral impact on the conservation area as it could not be seen from the street. In relation to the difference in ground level it was explained that if the fence were reinstated the only part visible to the neighbouring property would be the high level glazing, creating a different, but not oppressive, outlook.

Questions for Officers

(3)                   In response to Councillor Wells the difference in ground level and the proposed distance to the boundary was confirmed.

(4)                   In response to Councillor Davey the Senior Planning Officer explained that the impact on the conservation area related to the changes to the form of the building which this type of extension would erode. In relation to the fence it was noted that this could still create a harmful impact.

(5)                   Councillor Jones asked about an approval on the same street for a similar type of extension; in response it was explained that the circumstances were different as this property had a neighbouring extension and there was no impact on amenity as the extension was built up to the boundary.

(6)                   It was also noted, in response to Councillor Mac Cafferty, that where this type of scheme had been allowed at appeal the issues often related to design, not amenity, and many had been before the adoption of the SPD.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(7)                   Councillor Duncan stated that he would not support the Officer recommendation, and felt the support from the neighbours was a compelling argument.

(8)                   Councillor Hyde stated that the site visit had been very useful, and demonstrated the visual impact. The main issue related to the impact on neighbouring amenity, and there was a significant difference in ground levels. The proposal was very close to the boundary wall and would have a significant impact on the neighbouring property. She highlighted that the other example on the street represented an entirely different situation, and it was important to judge each application on its own merits.

(9)                   Councillor Gilbey agreed with this comment and reiterated that the extension would be overbearing for the neighbour.

(10)               Councillor Mac Cafferty also concurred with these comments, and highlighted the difference in height; stating that he would support the Officer recommendation.

(11)               A vote was taken and the Officer recommendation to refuse was carried on a vote of 8 in support; with 2 against and 2 abstentions.

154.3    RESOLVED - That the Committee has taken into consideration the recommendation and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in section 11 and resolved to be REFUSE planning permission for the reasons set out below:

Reasons for Refusal:

              i.           The proposed rear infill extension would wrap around the original rear wall of the outrigger forming an inappropriate addition which would be to the detriment of the character and appearance of the rear elevation and original plan form of the existing property. Furthermore the design would cause material harm to the surrounding Preston Park Conservation Area. The proposal would therefore be contrary to policies HE6, QD2 and QD14 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

            ii.           The proposed rear infill extension, by virtue of its depth in close proximity to the site boundary as well as its height, would result in an un-neighbourly form of development that would have an overbearing impact on the residents of the neighbouring property at no. 14 Waldegrave Road to the detriment of residential amenity. The scheme is therefore contrary to policies QD14 and QD27.

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.