Agenda item - BH2016/01478 - 23 Ainsworth Avenue, Brighton - Full Planning

Erection of 1no two storey four bedroom house (C3).

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Erection of 1no two storey four bedroom house (C3).

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

Officer Introduction

2)            Principal Planning Officer, Stewart Glassar, introduced the application and gave a presentation with reference to plans, photographs and elevational drawings. The design of the proposed dwelling was split level and a storey would be at lower ground floor level; therefore, would appear to be a single storey building from the street scene. The property would be brick and the roofs would be a combination of flat and pitched.

3)            The proposed dwelling would be 18.5 metres from the neighbouring property and there would be screening on the front terrace to protect the neighbours and occupants. The Officers considered the concerns that were raised but believed these were not significant and recommended that the application be granted.

Questions for the Officers

4)           In response to Councillor Hyde it was explained that the terrace would have glazed screening and would be approximately 1.5 metres high; therefore, the neighbours would not be affected by overlooking unless the residents were standing. The intention of the glazed screening was that it would not be clear glass; it would be a dark tinted glass.

5)           In response to Councillor Morris it was clarified that the terrace was originally proposed to be at the rear of the building.

6)           Councillor Hyde clarified to Councillor Inkpin-Leissner that the majority of the roofs in the area were pitched and made in red brick.

7)           The Officer noted to Councillor Moonan that the trees, about which concerns had been raised, had already been removed.

Debate and Decision Making

8)            Councillor Miller noted that it was a difficult decision and he did not like the design of the front elevation that faced Ainsworth Close. He stated that the design could be improved significantly.

9)            Councillor Russell-Moyle agreed with Councillor Miller and added that the side view of the elevation was more attractive that the front. He added that it was a good site, had available parking and would be a good sized property; therefore, he would be supporting the Officer recommendation.

10)         Councillor C. Theobald explained that she did not like the design of the terrace and it would overlook the neighbouring property. She stated that the design of the property was out of place in the area and therefore would not be supporting the Officer recommendation.

11)         Councillor Wares noted that he liked the design; however, the existing street scene had character and the proposed dwelling would not blend well with it. He noted concerns that it was a “back garden development” as it could encourage others to apply for similar permission. He explained that he would not be supporting the Officer recommendation.

12)         Councillor Inkpin-Leissner noted that he agreed with Councillor Wares and would not be supporting the Officer recommendation.

13)         Councillor Littman noted that he was indifferent with the design; however, agreed with Councillor Wares that there was character in the area. He believed that overlooking neighbouring properties would not be an issue and did not believe there were grounds to refuse the application.

14)         Councillor Hyde requested that if the application was granted, that the Committee agreed to condition the balcony screening being obscure glazing. She added that she did not like the design of the dwelling and was therefore undecided whether to support the Officer recommendation.

15)         Councillor Moonan explained that she supported the principle of development in the area and it was a big plot; however, she did not like the design of the proposed dwelling. She added that additional housing was needed in the city and would therefore be supporting the Officer recommendation.

16)         Councillor Morris noted that he was undecided if to support the Officer recommendation.

17)         Councillor Mac Cafferty noted that the proposed dwelling was not situated in a conservation area or identified as an urban fringe site and in a suburban area, a degree of overlooking was expected. There were different designed houses and footprints in the area and having a bold design in the area would not be significant; therefore, he would be supporting the Officer recommendation.

18)         Councillor Miller proposed an alternative to the Officer recommendation to refuse the application on the grounds of overlooking or perceived overlooking, impact on amenity of no. 4 Ainsworth Close and design. Councillor Miller’s alternative recommendation was seconded by Councillor Hyde.

19)         A recorded vote was taken on the proposed alternative recommendation by the 12 Members present. This was not carried with Councillors C. Theobald, Hyde, Inkpin-Leissner, Miller and Wares in support, Councillors Gilbey, Mac Cafferty, Littman, Moonan, Morris, Russell-Moyle and Cattell against.

20)         A vote was taken by the 12 Members present on the substantive Officer recommendation that the Committee grant planning permission; this was carried with 7 in support and 5 against.

56.7    RESOLVED – That the Committee resolves to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions and  informatives set out in section one and a condition requiring that the screening be obscurely glazed.