Agenda item - BH2017/00668 - 17 Denmark Villas, Hove - Householder Planning Consent

Erection of single storey rear extension. (Part retrospective)

RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO REFUSE

Ward Affected: Goldsmid

Erection of single storey rear extension. (Part retrospective)

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

Officer Presentation

2)               The Principal Planning Officer introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to photographs, plans and elevational drawings. The application site related to an extension that had been constructed. The previous application for the same extension was refused under delegated powers and it was then dismissed at appeal. The application was part-retrospective as there was proposed vegetative screening between the extension and the neighbouring property; however, there were not any material changes proposed.

3)               There had been a previous conservatory on the site. The current conservatory would not have been permitted development as it was in the article 4 area and the eaves were over 3 meters high. The appeal decision for the previous application the planning inspector found that the impact on the conservation area was acceptable and impact on the neighbouring amenity in terms of privacy was acceptable; however, the scheme would harm the outlook on the boundary due to its dominance. After the appeal decision, the Planning officers suggested to the applicant to reduce the height of the conservatory.

Public Speaker(s) and Questions

4)               Mr Anthony Foster spoke in objection to the application on behalf of the objector who lived at 15 Denmark Villas. He stated that the current application was to retain the structure that had been built which had been previously refused and dismissed at appeal. The patio doors were too close to the boundary and the height and depth of the structure would harm the neighbours’ amenity. There was a 10cm width gap between the boundary wall and the structure; therefore, the would be problems growing the vegetation screening.  The previous conservatory was a glazed feature and did not have an impact of the neighbouring amenity. The current conservatory was larger and protrudes further into the garden. The neighbours had significant concerns regarding the application as it was built without planning permission. The neighbours had expressed concern for if the application was granted, it would set a precedent. 

5)               In response to Councillor Russell-Moyle Mr Foster noted that the current conservatory was approximately one foot higher than the previous conservatory.

6)               In response to Councillor Miller it was stated that the wooden fence was erected by the neighbouring property in 2015.

7)               Mr Cook spoke in support of the application in his capacity as the applicant. He acknowledge that he had made a mistake not seeking planning permission before erecting the conservatory; however, he had sought advice from various agents and contractors who stated that he did not need permission. He did not want to replace the previous conservatory; however, it was unsafe due to the roof leaking, and it had to be demolished. He explained that they had consulted with the neighbours regarding the proposal and they had not raised any concerns. The conservatory was the same size and height as the previous conservatory and was more sympathetic to the residential area. The inspector had supported the design and noted that the amenity of the neighbours would not be breached; however, he had put an obscure film over the window that bordered the neighbours’ property. He added that the conservatory respected the neighbours space and would not prevent natural light to their property.

8)               In response to Councillor Miller Mr Cook stated that they would use a contractor, which was on the approved Council list, to ensure that the planting will survive. 

9)               In response to Councillor Morris it was explained that the previous application was withdrawn because the proposal was for a higher and larger conservatory and would prevent natural light into the property.

10)            In response to Councillor Russell-Moyle the applicant explained that when the appeal was refused, he considered the possible options and sought professional advice. He had drawn up plans for a revised structure, which he had begun to submit, that complied with the measurement advice received from the Planning Department. After consideration; however, he withdrew the application as the structure would come below the existing features of the house and decided to focus on the issues raised regarding amenity.

11)            In response to the Chair it was explained that a number of companies that he approached had stated that they would not need to seek planning permission as the extension would be erected on the existing footprint as the previous conservatory and would be the same scale and size.

Questions for Officers

12)            In response to Councillor Miller the Officer explained that the total height of the extension was 4.2 meters to the top of the roof lantern and 3.4 meters to the top of the eaves. It was noted that he did not have the measurements of the previous conservatory; however, the main consideration was for the existing conservatory and the inspector’s comments.

13)            In response to Councillor Yates it was confirmed that the structure of the conservatory was the same as the dismissed application but with the addition of vegetation screening.

14)            It was clarified to Councillor Russell-Moyle that the conservatory windows are clear glass and the applicant had added an obscure film over the window close to the neighbouring property. It was added that he was unaware if a daylight and sunlight assessment had been completed during the original consideration; however, it was not a determinable factor.

15)            In response to Councillor Morris it was clarified that the windows were upvc timber effect; however, these could not be seen from the street scene.

Debate and Decision Making Process

16)            Councillor Russell-Moyle explained that he respected the Planning Inspector’s decision and was not convinced that the vegetation screening would be able to grow. He noted that the extension was aesthetically pleasing and would not have an impact on the neighbour’s amenity. He added that he would most likely be voting against the Officer’s recommendation.

17)            Councillor Littman noted that the inspector’s reasons for dismissal were clear and the application had not materially changed and would therefore be supporting the Officer’s recommendation.

18)            Councillor Mac Cafferty stated that the applicant did not apply for planning permission; however, he had come to the Planning Committee and acknowledged he had made a mistake because he received the wrong information. Councillor Mac Cafferty noted that it was an attractive extension; however, he did sympathise with the neighbours. He noted that he would not be supporting the Officer’s recommendation.

19)            Councillor Miller noted that the fence was slatted wood; therefore, the planting could grow. He explained that the applicants did not have the frosted film on the windows when the inspector made a decision and therefore, would not be supporting the Officer’s recommendation.

20)            Councillor Hyde noted that the site visit to the site and the neighbouring property was helpful and there was not a sense of enclosure from the neighbour’s patio. It was a better design than the previous extension and the obscure glazing film on the windows resolved potential overlooking problems. She suggested that if the application was granted, a condition securing the obscure film would be welcomed.

21)            Councillor C. Theobald stated that the conservatory appeared to be lower than the previous conservatory and was more in keeping with the house. She noted that she would not be supporting the Officer’s recommendation.

22)            Councillor Yates noted that it was an attractive conservatory; however, the vegetation screening would not change the issues raised by the inspector, therefore he would be abstaining.

23)            Councillor Gilbey explained that she attended the site visit and if she had not known the issues raised by the inspector, she would have supported the application. There was not a problem with light restriction or overlooking; however, she was undecided if to support the Officer’s recommendation.

24)            The Chair then put the application to the vote and the Officer recommendation was not carried with 4 in support, 6 against and 1 abstention. Councillor Hyde then proposed reasons to grant the application and these were seconded by Councillor Miller. A recorded vote was then taken, Councillors: C. Theobald, Mac Cafferty, Bennett, Hyde, Miller and Russell-Moyle voted to grant the application and Councillors: Cattell, Gilbey, Littman and Morris voted to refuse the application and Councillor Yates abstained.

138.5    RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration the Officer recommendation, but resolved to grant planning permission subject to the conditions subsequently agreed set out below:

1. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved drawings listed below.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

2. a)The landscaping/planting scheme detailed on the elevational drawings by Tori Lilley drawing nos. 1,2 and 3 received on 13 March 2017 shall be carried out within one month of the date of this permission.

b) Any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the above planting are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.

              Reason: To enhance the appearance of the development in the interests of the living

conditions of the neighbouring occupiers at 15 Denmark Villas and to comply with policies QD14, QD15 and QD27 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan and CP12 of the Brighton & Hove City Plan Part One.

3. The four windows in the south side elevation of the development facing 15 Denmark Villas hereby permitted shall be obscurely glazed and thereafter permanently retained as such.

Reason: To safeguard the privacy of the occupiers of the adjoining property and to comply with policies QD14 and QD27 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.