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)          It was noted that this application had formed the subject of a site visit prior to the meeting and that public speaking in respect of the application had already taken place.

(2)          The Planning Manager, Applications, Nicola Hurley gave a presentation by reference to photographs plans and elevational drawing one of a pair of similar 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. Reference was also made to recent notification by the Planning Inspectorate to dismiss an appeal in respect of 16 Mill Rise, a similar site where permission had been sought and refused for similar work.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(3)       Councillor Hyde stated that having visited the site the previous afternoon, she did not agree that the proposed development would be too bulky. There did not appear to be any prevailing design in the street scene a number of bulky extensions and front dormers were observed which it had been noted had been constructed at some time in the past when permitted development had allowed that form of development. In her view the scheme was relatively modest would not impact detrimentally on neighbouring properties as it was well set back within its cul de sac location and would enable the applicants to provide the additional room they wanted for their family without detriment to the street scene.

(4)       Councillor Randall concurred in that view noting that no objections had been received from neighbours, he was in agreement that what was proposed was modest, he considered that some of the other dwellings in the road were more dominant and he did not agree that the proposed form of development would have a negative impact.

(5)       Councillor Gilbey stated that whilst she noting the recent Inspector’s decision in respect of 16 Mill Rise she did not consider that the same issues applied in respect of this application, considering that it was acceptable and should not be refused.

(6)       A vote was taken by the 11 members present at Committee and the Officer recommendation that the Committee refuse planning permission was not carried on a vote of 8 to 3. Councillor Hyde proposed that the application be granted for the reason set out below and subject to the Planning and Building Control Applications Manager’s approval of suitable planning conditions and this was seconded by Councillor Wells. A recorded vote was then taken. Councillors Hyde, Gilbey, Littman, Phillips, Randall, C Theobald, Wealls and Wells voted that they were minded to grant planning permission for the reason set out below and subject to approval of conditions as referred to above. Councillors Mac Cafferty (the Chair), Davey and Hamilton voted that the application be refused.

127.4  RESOLVED - That the Committee has taken into consideration the Officer’s recommendation but resolves that it is MINDED TO GRANT planning permission for the reason set out below and subject the Planning and Building Control Applications Manager’s approval of suitable planning conditions.

              Reason for grant:

The proposed extension to the roof, by virtue of its size, bulk and design, would not form an excessive or visually inappropriate addition to the existing building, would be in keeping with the street scene and would not create an imbalance with the neighbouring property, 27 Falmer Gardens.

              Note :Councillor Carden was absent from the meeting during consideration of the above item and took no part in the discussion or decision making process.