Agenda item - BH2014/03113 - 2 Baywood Gardens, Brighton - Full Planning

Demolition of garage and erection of 1no. three bedroom, detached dwelling.

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE

Demolition of garage and erection of 1no. three bedroom, detached dwelling.

1)               It was noted that the application had formed the subject of a site visit prior to the meeting.

2)               The Area Planning Manager introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to photographs, plans and elevational drawings. The application site related to a strip of garden on a plot containing a detached house and garage; it was also noted that there had been a mobile home on the site which has been the subject on an enforcement notice. The ground on the site sloped to the north and the wider area was characterised by detached bungalows and two-storey buildings. Permission was sought for the demolition of the existing garage and the creation of a two-storey bungalow.

3)               The main considerations related to the principle of the proposals; the suitability of the scheme; neighbouring and future amenity; transport and sustainability. The application sought permission for one detached property, and the site was defined as greenfield. The proposed dwelling would cover much of the site, and the footprint was considered excessive with a large elongated gable on the southern elevation that was considered to be out of character with the area – the proposal was also considered overdevelopment. The proposal was closer to the neighbouring property than the existing property, and had a greater height and form. The application was recommended for refusal for the reasons set out in the report.

Public Speaker(s) and Questions

4)               Mr Tim Baxter spoke in objection to the application on behalf of his mother and sister who lived in the property to the rear. He stated that the scheme was overdevelopment of the site, and it would severely impact his mother’s property as the rear of her property contained the living room and second bedroom. The application intended to establish the principle of a dwelling on the plot following the removal of the mobile home. The impact of the proposals would block out sunlight and impact on the privacy of his mother’s home. There was no objection to the principle of a dwelling on the site, but the proposal needed to be appropriate and sympathetic.

5)               Mrs Dee Simson spoke in support of the application in her capacity as the applicant. She stated that when her father had originally bought the plot of land in 1932 it had always been the intention of it to be a double plot for two houses, but instead had been used for a double garage. Mrs Simson noted that she had been advised that the static caravan was acceptable, but she had then complied with the enforcement notice and removed it. Since that time her family had all moved into the main house and the proposal were a means to provide permanent accommodation for her family. Mrs Simson was of the view that the development was in compliance with NPPF; the design related well to the surrounding area, and efforts had been to move the property as far from the boundary line as possible. The impact was acknowledged, but it was considered that any building in this position would have some impact – furthermore any reduction in the size of the scheme would compromise the necessity to have three bedrooms.

Debate and Decision Making Process

6)               Councillor Wells noted that many of the other houses in the area were on similar size plots to the one that was being proposed, and it was important that the Council look at providing houses on plots such as these. Councillor Wells stated that he would not support the Officer recommendation.

7)               In response to queries from the Committee the Head of Development Control and the Senior Lawyer explained that as the applicant was a Member of the Council any question of personal bias would be for the individual Members of the Committee to declare. The application had been put before the Committee on the basis that the applicant was a Councillor, and this was considered best practice in terms of openness and transparency.

8)               Councillor Littman stated his view that the plot could accommodate a property, but the proposal was more than the site could accommodate.

9)               Councillor Hyde stated that she had listened carefully to the vote and was of two minds in relation to the application.

10)            Councillor Gilbey stated that she would support the Officer recommendation as the site visit had made it clear how close the proposal would be to the neighbouring property.

11)            Councillor Carden stated that he felt the proposal was too large for the size of the plot.

12)            Councillor Jones noted that there was support for the principle of a property on the site; however, there were problems with the building that was proposed. He acknowledged the difficult situation the applicant was in, but felt a better scheme could come forward.

13)            A vote was taken by the 12 Members present and the Officer recommendation that the Committee refuse planning permission was carried on a vote on 8 in support, 2 against and 2 abstentions.

115.1    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 permission for the reasons set out below:

Reasons for Refusal:

i)       The proposed dwelling, by virtue of its excessive scale, mass, bulk, footprint and site coverage, is considered an inappropriate visually intrusive development that would represent an incongruous form of development that would be out of character with the pattern of surrounding development. Consequently the proposal represents an over-development of the site to the detriment of the surrounding area. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies QD1, QD2 and QD3 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

ii)     The proposed dwelling, by virtue of its excessive scale, mass, bulk and positioning, would represent an overbearing development that would have an un-neighbourly impact to the detriment of the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties. The proposal would therefore be contrary to policy 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.