Agenda item - BH2014/03351 - 13 Channel View Road, Brighton - Householder Planning Consent

Alterations to roof including raising of ridge height, barn end roof extension, front dormer incorporating balcony, insertion of rear window and 4no. side facing rooflights.

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE

Alterations to roof including raising of ridge height, barn end roof extension, front dormer incorporating balcony, insertion of rear window and 4no. side facing rooflights

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

(2)       The Planning Manager, Applications, Nicola Hurley gave a presentation by reference to photographs site plans and elevational drawings. Notwithstanding that there was a mixture of property types and styles it was considered that the proposed development failed to accord with local plan policies in respect of extensions, by virtue of its design, size, form and massing which it was considered would result in visually intrusive and bulky additions to the property which would be of an unsympathetic design and refusal was therefore recommended.

Public Speakers and Question(s)

(3)       Mr Bourbisson spoke on behalf of the applicants in support of their application. He stated that the design was modest when viewed in the context of neighbouring properties. The property was well set back from the road, was well designed and he did not consider that it was unsympathetic or visually intrusive.

Questions for Officers

(4)       Councillor Littman referred to the planning history of the site and asked whether the previous application had been refused under officer's delegated powers and it was confirmed that it had. Councillor Littman also enquired regarding works which had had been carried out to neighbouring dwellings. It was explained whilst planning permission had been given for some of the works underway to the immediately adjacent dwelling, a number of unauthorised works had also been undertaken and were being investigated with a view to taking enforcement action if appropriate. Councillor Hyde also sought clarification regarding works to other dwellings nearby, particularly regarding those to the immediately adjacent property in order to ascertain which works had been given planning permission and which had not.

(5)       Councillor Mac Cafferty, the Chair sought further clarification regarding the planning history of works to other properties in the immediate vicinity. It was confirmed that whilst some had been granted planning permission some had not, some of the works had been carried out as permitted development at a time when planning permission had not been required.

(6)       Councillor Wells enquired whether the large box dormer to the front of one of the neighbouring properties had been constructed as permitted development and it was confirmed that it had.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(7)       Councillor Gilbey stated that she  did not consider that there was a prevailing style in the road, that there was any continuity in building styles or that what was proposed would be detrimental or out of keeping with the host building in this instance.

(8)       Councillor Randall concurred stating that during the site visit the previous afternoon the remark had been made that the street was a hotch-potch of different building styles. He was in agreement that was the case and did not therefore consider that the works proposed were unacceptable. The property was set well back from the road and as such he did not consider that the proposals would be detrimental.

(9)       Councillor Wells stated that was glad that Members had had the opportunity to visit the site. In his view the proposals were acceptable. Councillor Hyde agreed stating that whilst the existing guidance put together in 1999 had served the planning authority well until now she considered that it might be timely for some elements of this to be revisited, she was aware that this was the case and that some changes might be effected as a result. Councillor Hyde stated that she considered the proposal to be acceptable and on this occasion did not feel; able to support the recommendation that planning permission be refused.

(10)     A vote was taken by the 12 members present at Committee and the Officer recommendation that the Committee refuse planning permission was not carried on a vote of 8 to 4. 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 Randall. 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), Carden, Davey and Hamilton voted that the application be refused.

127.5  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 development, by reason of its design, size, form and massing would not be visually intrusive and would be sympathetic to the design of the existing bungalow.