Agenda item - BH2015/01083 - 14 Sandringham Close, Hove - Householder Planning Consent

Erection of single storey side and rear extension, demolition of rear garage and associated alterations.

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE

Erection of single storey side and rear extension, demolition of rear garage and associated alterations.

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

(2)             The Planning Manager (Applications), Nicola Hurley, introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to photographs, plans and elevational drawings. The site related to a semi-detached property on the northern side of the road. Planning permission was sought for a single side and rear extension. The relevant policy in relation to the application was SPD 12 for householder alterations; this guidance stated that extensions should respect the design and scale of the building. It was considered that the proposed extension would be unsympathetic; the proposed roof line would be awkward and disjointed and most affect the properties to the east and west, in particular is was considered that the impact on No. 15 would be unacceptable and overbearing. For these reasons the application was recommended for refusal.

Public Speaker(s) and Questions

(3)             Prof. Alan Phillips spoke in support of the application in his capacity as the architect for the scheme. He used visuals to demonstrate what could be built at the site under permitted development rights, and it was noted that similar additions had been made elsewhere in the street. The scheme sought to allow the property to have a larger kitchen, and there was only one section of the scheme that could not be permitted under permitted development rights.. At a nearby site on Elizabeth Avenue a similar scheme for a wraparound extension on an identical host property had been granted consent. It was concluded that the scheme would not harm the character of the area, and the Committee were asked to approve it.

(4)             Prof. Phillips confirmed for Councillor C. Theobald that the similar scheme at 46 Elizabeth Avenue had been refused by the Local Planning Authority, but granted permission at appeal.

(5)             In response to Councillor Wares Officers provided the Committee with the proposed elevational drawings for the scheme at Elizabeth Avenue.

Questions for Officers

(6)             In response to Councillor Mac Cafferty the visuals of the current and proposed footprint were shown to the Committee. In response to a further question it was explained that the application could not be achieved through permitted development as there was one was aspect that needed planning permission.

(7)             In response to Councillor Barradell it was explained that matters of amenity could only be considered with a prior approval application if there were objections; where a planning application was required the Local Planning Authority was able to consider all relevant matters included amenity.

(8)             It was confirmed for Councillor Inkpin-Leissner that whilst the applicant could technically undertake the scheme in a piecemeal approach; this would be unlikely because of the finished internal configuration the scheme sought to achieve.

(9)             In response to Councillor Wares it was clarified that whilst a larger rear extension would be possible under permitted development, without the wraparound element, there would still be the right of objection from neighbours. When neighbours objected Officers were able to consider amenity issues, and there could be no guarantee that such a scheme would get permission.

(10)          In response to Councillor Bennett the depth of the extension and the distance to the rear wall of the scheme at 46 Elizabeth Avenue were clarified.

(11)          It was confirmed for Councillor Mac Cafferty that the permitted development elements were not listed in the planning history as they had not been the subject of a planning application – the works to No. 13 were listed in the report as they had.

(12)          In response to Councillor Gilbey it was explained that the application at 46 Elizabeth had not had the amenity issues associated with this scheme. Every application was considered on its merits and it was the view of Officers that this scheme was harmful to both design and amenity.

(13)          In response to Councillor Littman it was confirmed that the scheme at 46 Elizabeth was refused for reasons relating to over-dominance and poor design.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(14)          Councillor Mac Cafferty stated that he was of the view the harm to the building had already been caused through permitted development alterations to the roof; the scheme before the Committee would not harm neighbouring amenity, and did not feel awkward or disjointed. For these reasons he would not support the Officer recommendation.

(15)          Councillor Barradell stated that properties in the street already had a number of extensions and additions; she stated that she was minded to not support the Officer recommendation.

(16)          Councillor Littman also noted he was minded to not support the Officer recommendation and made reference to the support from immediate neighbours.

(17)          Councillor C. Theobald noted the harm that had been caused to the building through the permitted development alterations; she stated she could see the merits of both sides of the argument, but felt the policy was clear on these types of alterations. For these reasons she would support the Officer recommendation.

(18)          Councillor Miller noted he would be voting against the Officer recommendation as he agreed with the points raised by Councillors Mac Cafferty and Barradell; he felt the application was an opportunity to actually improve the amenity.

(19)          Councillor Allen noted that it was often important these older types of homes be adapted to suit modern living.

(20)          Councillor Inkpin-Leissner noted that much of the scheme would be permissible through permitted development rights; for this reason he would not support the Officer recommendation.

(21)          Councillor Bennett stated she would not support the Officer recommendation.

(22)          Councillor Gilbey stated the roof was overbearing and too large.

(23)          The Chair stated that the cumulative impact of the proposal was too great, and she would support the Officer recommendation to prevent undermining the SPD.

(24)          A vote was taken and the Officer recommendation that permission be refused was not carried on a vote of 4 in support with 8 against. The reason for approval was proposed by Councillor Mac Cafferty and these were seconded by Councillor Inkpin-Leissner. The reason was then read to the Committee to confirm it reflected what had been discussed. A recorded vote then taken and Councillors: Mac Cafferty, Barradell, Bennett, Inkpin-Leissner, Littman, Miller, Allen and Wares voted that planning permission be granted and Councillors: Cattell, Gilbey, C. Theobald and Hamilton voted that planning permission be refused.

6.3         RESOLVED: That the Committee has considered the Officer recommendation, but resolved to GRANT planning permission for the following reason, and subject to additional conditions for standard time, materials to match existing and drawings:

                    i.             The proposed development would not harm the building or the amenity of neighbouring occupiers, and neither would it create unduly prominent extensions. The proposed development does not therefore contravene policies QD14 and QD27 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan 2005.