Agenda item - BH2014/03405 - 26 Falmer Gardens, Brighton - Householder Planning Consent

Roof alterations including hip to barn end roof extensions, dormers and rooflights to front and rear elevations.

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE

Roof alterations including hip to barn end roof extensions, dormers and rooflights to front and rear elevations.

(1)             The Area Planning Manager gave a presentation by reference to photographs plans and elevational drawings. The application site related to a detached bungalow; which formed two very similar neighbouring bungalows – the relevant history was outlined in the report. The guidance in SPD 12 demonstrated that the proposed extension would be uncharacteristic of those in the area, and the bungalow was a mirror of the neighbouring property. The dormer extensions did not align with the fenestration below, and those proposed at the back were contrary to guidance. The application would constitute overdevelopment in a largely undeveloped area, and the application was recommended for refusal for the reasons set out in the report.

Public Speaker(s) and Questions

(2)             Councillor Simson spoke in support of the application in her capacity as the Local Ward Councillor. She stated that many people within the Ward were being refused similar applications to extend their homes and prevent them from moving out of the area. The development was supported by the neighbours, and despite it being different from the neighbouring property there was a lot of variation in properties in the area. The proposals would not severely impact on the street scene, and the Committee were asked to approve the application to allow the family to stay in the area.

(3)             Mr Morgan spoke in support of the application in his capacity as the applicant. He stated that he and his family had lived at the property for 12 years and had made a number of previously applications; one of which had been approved. The proposal would allow the family to stay in the house, and the extension was not considered overdevelopment given the size of the plot. The family were embedded in the local community, and the failure to gain approval would force them out of the area. Mr Morgan also noted that the red edge shown in the plans was wrong as he recently purchased garden area from a neighbour.

Questions for Officers

(4)             In response to the Chair it was explained that the issue relating to the red edge would not have impacted on the recommendation.

(5)             It was confirmed for Councillor Wells that the proposal would not increase the height of the building, but instead create additional bulk at the sides.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(6)             Councillor Hyde noted that the roof elevation was ‘a little bulky’; she did not see a problem as this property differed from the neighbouring bungalow, and noted there were no objections to the scheme. She noted that the family were established in the local community, and stated she would not support the Officer recommendation.

(7)             Councillor Wells noted there were other examples of this type of alteration within the local area, and he would not support the Officer recommendation.

(8)             Councillor Gilbey stated she would have preferred a site visit, and proposed that the application be deferred to allow this to happen; this was seconded by Councillor Davey and agreed by the Committee.

115.8    RESOLVED – That the application be deferred to allow a site visit to take place.

Note: Councillors C. Theobald and Carden were not present during the consideration of this application.