Agenda item - BH2016/00015 - 51 Westbourne Villas, Hove - Householder Planning Consent

Alterations to rear elevation incorporating erection of timber conservatory and new balcony at ground floor level.

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Alterations to rear elevation incorporating erection of timber conservatory and new balcony at ground floor level.

Officers Introduction

1)               The Planning Manager introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to plans, photographs and elevational drawings. It was highlighted that a late letter had been received from Councillor Cobb in objection to the application and recommending Members should have a site visit. The application was recommended for approval for the reasons set out in the report.

Public Speaker(s) and Questions

2)               Mr Kelvin Tyler spoke in objection to the application in his capacity as a local resident and photos were shown to the Committee. He was of the view that the application should not be granted as it would cause a loss of amenity and sunlight to his property as it was 5 metres in height and 2.7 metres away from the windows. He noted that the proposed conservatory was the same height as their second storey; therefore, should follow policy and be at least 14 metres away from neighbouring properties. He noted that he had support from Councillor Cobb, Ward Councillor, and he had a survey report completed which noted that the development would impact on his property and should not be granted consent. He stated that the report in the agenda referred to a previous application that was allowed at appeal; however this was not built.

3)               Mr John Fairall spoke in his capacity as the applicant and photos were shown to the Committee. He explained that he had owned the property since 2012 and had improved the visual appearance of the house. He noted that the conservatory plans had been amended since the previous application that had been approved at appeal. The changes included the use of higher quality materials and smaller in size. He explained that the conservatory would not be visible from the road and would not have a significant impact on the neighbouring properties, as it would be 2.8 metres away from their windows.

4)               In response to Councillor Mac Cafferty, the Planning Manager clarified the guidance used to assess impacts on light to the adjoining property. It was added that this was a material consideration to be considered with other material considerations when determining the application.

5)               Councillor C. Theobald noted that there were 22 letters of objection and proposed a site visit. Councillor Hyde seconded the proposal of a site visit.

18.10    RESOLVED – That the Committee agreed to defer the item to undertake a site visit.