Agenda item - BH2013/01655 - 15 Lenham Avenue Saltdean, Brighton - Removal or Variation of ConditionApplication for variation of condition 3 of application BH2012/00752 (Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of 2no detached dwellings.) to state that no extension, enlargement or other alteration of the dwelling houses excluding works covered by Class B of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, shall be carried out without planning permission obtained from the Local Planning Authority.

Application for variation of condition 3 of application BH2012/00752 (Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of 2no detached dwellings.) to state that no extension, enlargement or other alteration of the dwelling houses excluding works covered by Class B of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, shall be carried out without planning permission obtained from the Local Planning Authority.

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE

(1)       The Area Planning Manager, Mrs Hurley explained that there was an error in the final sentence of Paragraph 4.2 of the report. It should read, “Part B of the Town and Country Planning General Permitted Development) order 1995 refers to roof alterations.”

(2)       The Area Planning Manager gave a presentation detailing the scheme by reference to site plans and photographs and by reference to the previous planning history of the site. The main considerations in determining the application related to the impact of the proposed variation of condition 3 on neighbouring residential amenity. Condition 3 of the original planning permission had removed permitted development rights as it had been considered that further development could cause detriment to the amenities of the residents of nearby properties and had therefore sought to control future development by that means. Officers’ remained of the view that they would wish to control any future  development to the roof of the property on the basis that roof extensions could cause material harm to neighbouring amenity and could result in overlooking and refusal of request to vary Condition 3 was therefore recommended. Removal of permitted development rights did not preclude further works properties but did ensure that planning permission had to be sought for any future development and that it complied with policies QD4 and QD27 of the Local Plan.

            Public Speakers and Questions

(3)       Mr O’Connell spoke on behalf of the applicant in support of their application. He referred to the configuration of the site which sloped downwards. Various amendments had been made to the scheme in order to address objections in relation to overlooking which had been received from some neighbours. Given the configuration of the site and distance of the development from some of the neighbouring properties he did not agree that there overlooking would occur, particularly as obscured glazing had been proposed.

(4)       Councillor Hyde asked the applicant why they sought to vary existing conditions rather than submitting a new application, Mr O’Connell explained that a variation had been sought in preference to submitting a new planning application which they believed would be a longer process.

            Questions for Officers, Debate and Decision Making Process

(5)       Councillor Robins stated that he was confused by references to properties abutting the site, particularly by references to nos 12 and 17 Eileen Avenue, there did not appear to be a no17. It was confirmed that this was not so and references on some of the applicant’s drawings actually related to no 12 Eileen Avenue.

(6)       Councillor Hyde stated that she supported the recommendations contained in the officer’s report considering that Condition 3 had been included in the original permission in order to protect neighbouring amenity and to ensure that the Local Planning Authority was able to control any future development.

(7)       A vote was taken and planning permission was refused on a vote of 9 to 2 with 1 abstention.

43.4    RESOLVED - That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in section 11 and the policies and guidance in section 7 and resolves to REFUSE planning permission for the reason(s) set out below:

            Reasons for Refusal:

The Local Planning Authority would wish to control any future development to the roof of the property on the basis that roof extensions could cause material harm to neighbouring amenity by way of overlooking contrary to QD14 and QD27 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

Informatives:

1. In accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy SS1 of the Brighton & Hove City Plan Part One (submission document) the approach to making a decision on this planning application has been to apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development. The Local Planning Authority seeks to approve planning applications which are for sustainable development where possible. 2. This decision is based on the drawings listed below:

Plan Type Reference Version Date Received

Proposed plan, elevations and site plan 1124-21 A 22 May 2013

Existing plans, elevations and site plan