Agenda item - BH2016/05379 - 30 Windmill Drive, Brighton - Householder Planning Consent

Remodelling of existing dwelling including raising of roof height to create additional storey with dormer windows and rooflights, revised fenestration and any associated alterations.

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Ward Affected: Withdean

Remodelling of existing dwelling including raising of roof height to create additional storey with dormer windows and rooflights, revised fenestration and any associated alterations.

Officer Presentation

1)               The Principal Planning Officer introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to photographs, plans and elevational drawings. The application site was within close proximity to the South Downs National Park. The key considerations were the design, appearance and the impact on neighbouring amenity.

2)               It was explained that a daylight and sunlight assessment on the impact of 28 Windmill Drive had been submitted as part of the application. The Planning Officers considered the impact the development would have on the neighbouring properties and concluded that there would not be harmful impacts on 28 Windmill Drive or 32 Windmill Drive.  

Public Speaker(s) and Questions

3)               Mr White addressed the Committee in his capacity as an objector and noted that the properties in the area that had been extended were sympathetic to the area and did not impact on the neighbours’ amenity. The local residents had raised concern for the scale of the property and the appearance, which would be prominent from the street scene. He explained that the revised scheme had not been amended to resolve the queries raised by local residents and they had concerns that the application would set a new precedent to the neighbouring bungalows. The road currently consisted of a row of unique bungalows on the city skyline that faced the South Downs National Park and the appearance of the proposed scheme was not in keeping with this.

4)               Councillor Taylor addressed the Committee in his capacity as a Ward Councillor and stated that he was representing the local residents who he had consulted closely with after the resubmission of the application. He explained that the new plan for the extension was welcomed; however, the residents remained concerned for the height of the proposal. The majority of the properties in the area were symmetrical and there was concern that if the proposal was granted, it would set a precedent for other properties in the area and would be detrimental to the appearance of the road. The aluminium windows and slate appearance would be out keeping with the predominant design of the neighbouring properties and street scene.

5)               In response to Councillor Morris he noted that residents had concerns for the existing sewage pipes, as mentioned in his letter.

6)               Mr Thompson addressed the Committee in his capacity as the agent and explained that he had a good working relationship with the Planning Officer and following discussions he had decided to set back the proposed storey on the garage. The existing bungalow had compromised available light and the removal of the conservatory would improve the natural light into the property. There was a history of applications for the neighbouring properties, to ensure the buildings were utilised, and therefore the street scene was not symmetrical. The footprint of the proposed extension would not exceed the existing property. Mr Thompson added that the extension and the proposed materials were suitable for the street scene.

7)               In response to Councillor C. Theobald it was explained that the aluminium windows and slate tiles would be grey.

8)               In response to Councillor Russell-Moyle it was stated that the property would be a similar colour to the bungalow next door; however, would be using slate rather than timber.

Questions for Officers

9)               In response to Councillor Miller the Officer confirmed that the property next door to the site, number 32, was agreed in 2009 and was relevant to the determination of the application.

10)            In response to Councillor Littman the Officer clarified that there was not any planning history on the neighbouring property, number 30.

11)            In response to Councillor C. Theobald the Officer noted that the bathroom window of the proposed extension was likely to be obscure glazing.

Debate and Decision Making Process

12)            Councillor Russell-Moyle noted that the development was sympathetic and similar applications had been agreed in other areas of the city. He added that the colour palette was the same as the neighbouring property.

13)            Councillor Hyde agreed with Councillor Russell-Moyle and was pleased that the applicant had worked with the Planning Officers to improve the application.

14)            Councillor Littman noted that he would be supporting the Officer’s recommendation.

15)            Councillor C. Theobald noted that the neighbouring property was also grey; however, the bungalows in the area were mostly brick with red roofs. She stated that she was undecided how she would vote.

16)            Councillor Miller noted that he would be supporting the Officer’s recommendation and welcomed the improvements that the developer had made and was pleased with the consultation with the Ward Councillors and local residents.

17)            The Chair noted that she would be supporting the Officer’s recommendation and explained that extending a property to get additional space was often the only option for residents as moving house would be costly.

18)            The Chair then put the application to the vote, and the Officer recommendation that the application be granted was carried by 9 votes in support and 1 abstention.

138.1    RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation, and resolves to GRANT permission for the reasons set out in the report.

Note: Councillor Bennett was not present for the consideration and vote.