Agenda item - BH2016/02377-11 Coombe Vale, Saltdean, Brighton - Full Planning

Roof alterations incorporating hip to barn end roof extensions, rear dormers, front rooflight and front and side windows and erection of front porch extension.

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE

Ward Affected: Rottingdean Coastal

Roof alterations incorporating hip to barn roof extensions, rear dormers, front rooflight and front and side windows and erection of front porch extension.

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

(2)       The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation by reference to plans, elevational drawings and photographs detailing the proposed scheme. It was considered that the scale, bulk form and overall design would appear as over dominant and out of character with the street scene. As such, it would have a detrimental impact on visual amenity and the character and appearance of the wider area and was considered contrary to policy QD14 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan and Supplementary Planning Document 12 and refusal was therefore recommended.

            Public Speakers

(3)       Mr Bromley spoke on behalf of the applicants in support of their application. He explained that the proposed extensions would provide a safe and enhanced sensory living space for one of the applicant’s children who had Downs Syndrome. The applicant had consulted the planning department in respect of their application and had sought to address all of the issues raised. It was not considered that the narrow dormers proposed would be unneighbourly or contrary to policy or out of keeping with the neighbouring street scene; in fact they would be less intrusive than a number of other extensions in the locality which had been constructed as permitted development.

(4)       Councillor Mears spoke in her capacity as a Local Ward Councillor in support of the application. In her view it should be noted that all aspects of the scheme had been agreed to except the proposed box dormer which she did consider would be intrusive nor would it result in overlooking/overshadowing of the adjacent dwelling at no 15. The character of Saltdean had changed significantly over the years due to extensions to existing buildings and other building works and was no longer characterised by small single storey bungalows. Given the number of roof level extensions which already existed in the area many of them constructed as permitted development she did not consider that what was proposed would be out of keeping or unneighbourly, that it was acceptable had been sensitively designed and that planning permission should be granted.

            Questions of Officers

(5)       Councillor Inkpin-Leissner sought clarification regarding the application before the committee for determination as only one dormer had been referred to.

(6)       Councillor Morris sought clarification regarding works proposed to the roof scape of the existing building at the rear and whether there was also a right of way adjacent to the property.

(7)       Councillor Janio also sought confirmation regarding the proposed scheme as he was confused regarding what elements had been dealt with as part of earlier schemes and what was currently proposed. Details of the scheme before the Committee were detailed and the Planning Manager, Major Applications, Paul Vidler confirmed that refusal was recommended on the three grounds set out in the report.

(8)       Councillor Russell-Moyle noted what had been said regarding the number of extensions which had been erected under permitted development rights and what would be required in order to make the application acceptable as he was seeking to ascertain the difference between what could be acceptable as opposed to what was proposed. It was explained that the Committee were required to determine the application before them and that in officers’ view the previous grounds for refusal had not been overcome.

(9)       Councillor Miller stated that it appeared to be whether it would be possible to remove the proposed hip to barn gable roof and to replace it with a more sympathetic structure.

(10)     Councillor Cattell, the Chair, stated that it was important that the Committee needed to determine the application before them and to form a view regarding impact on the neighbouring street scene.

            Debate and Decision Making Process

(11)     Councillor Janio enquired whether if works were subsequently completed under permitted development rights they would need to come back before the Committee and it was confirmed that they would not.

(12)     Councillor Yates stated that he was struggling to see how the proposed form of development would not meet the requirements of SPD 12 as the size of the dormer had been scaled back, or how it would result in something at variance with the neighbouring street scene when there were similar structures nearby which had not required planning permission.

(13)     In answer to further questions and discussion, The Planning Manager, Major Applications, confirmed that whilst there were some examples of inappropriate roof extensions in the surrounding area, no precedent had been established. SPD12 guidance stated that “the presence of inappropriate roof alterations in the street would not be accepted as evidence of an established precedent. This view had been upheld by the Planning Inspectorate in respect an appeal in relation to a property located in Hove which was referred to in the report. The proposed dormer whilst it would not be of full roof width, should none the less be subservient to the main host building and in this instance officers did not consider that to be the case. Ultimately, that was a subjective judgement

(14)     Councillor Moonan sought clarification of the location of any additional windows in relation to the neighbouring property also, to view the accompanying plans. In view of the location of the dormers she was undecided as to whether in her view a significant level of over shadowing would result.

(15)     Councillor Miller stated that in his view the proposed development would impact on the neighbouring dwelling but he did not consider that this would be significant or such that it warranted refusal of the application.

(16)     Councillor Mac Cafferty considered that it was important to note that the proposed form of development would have a detrimental impact on the neighbouring dwelling. Councillor Littman agreed and whilst he had sympathy for the needs of the applicant he was in agreement that the resulting development would be overbearing and incongruous in the street scene.

(17)     Councillor Inkpin-Leissner stated that there were differences of opinion regarding the degree of overshadowing which would result, he was also mindful of the needs of the family in this instance. Overall, whilst not perfect, he considered the scheme was acceptable and would be voting that the application be granted.

(18)     Councillor Russell-Moyle considered that it was always finely balanced in cases such as this and ultimately was subjective. On balance he did not agree that there would be a significant degree of overshadowing, particularly as none of the rooms affected would be principal habitable rooms and would be voting that planning permission be granted.

(19)     Councillor Wares stated that in his view the proposed scheme was acceptable and did not consider that the information cited in relation to the Inspector’s decision in relation to an application site in Hove was germane in this instance.

(20)     Councillor Hyde stated that she considered that the overall scale and design of the proposed development complied with policy QD14; that the size and design of the proposed dormer also complied with policy QD14 and was in keeping with SPD12: Design Guide for Extensions and Alterations. She did not consider that the roof extension would result in any significant overshadowing of number 15 Coombe Vale and that it therefore complied with policy QD27 and SPD 12.

(21)     A vote was taken and on a vote of 9 to 3 Planning Permission was granted subject to the conditions set out below. Councillor Hyde proposed that planning permission be granted  for the reasons she  had cited and this was seconded by Councillor Inkpin-Leissner. A recorded vote was then taken. Councillors Cattell, the Chair, Hyde, Inkpin-Leissner, Janio, Miller, Morris, Russell-Moyle, Wares and Yates voted that planning permission be granted. Councillors Mac Cafferty, Littman and Moonan voted that planning permission be refused. Therefore on a vote of 9 to 3 planning permission was granted.

96.4    RESOLVED - That the Committee has considered the application and resolves to GRANT Planning Permission subject to Conditions to be agreed by the Planning Manager.