Agenda item - BH2015/01291, 3 Sylvester Way, Hove - Householder Planning Consent

Erection of single storey front, side and rear extension.

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE

Ward Affected: Hangleton & Knoll

              Erection of single storey front, side and rear extension.

(1)          The Planning Manager (Applications), Nicola Hurley, introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to photographs, plans and elevational drawings.

(2)          The application site related to a detached bungalow located to the north of Sylvester Way. The property consisted of a north-south gable roof design with a single storey flat roofed attached garage to the eastern side of the property. The bungalow had been altered in the past and included a flat roof L shaped extension which extended to the rear of the garage along the eastern side of the boundary. The property also included a rear garden and a 3.1m strip of land to the east of the building which sat  approximately 1m lower than the floor level of the building and separated the property from the boundary fence.

(3)          Permission was sought for the erection of a single storey front, side and rear extension. The proposal would extend the existing wrap-around extension to the side of the property by approximately 2.7m and would also include a 3m wide, 2.7m deep projection to the rear at the eastern corner. The proposal would also extend the gable roof of the property to the rear over the existing wrap around extension. The main side and rear element of the extension would have a ridge height of 4.5m. The existing garage would be demolished and a new garage would be constructed projecting forward of the proposed extension of the property. The application followed a previous refusal (BH2014/02616). It was noted that there was an error in paragraph 9.1 of the report, the first line of which should read:

              “The proposed development would result in significant harm…”

(4)          The main considerations in the determination of this application relate to the impact of the proposed alterations on the character and appearance of the building and wider street scene and impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties. It was considered that the proposed development would result in significant harm on the character and appearance of the host property and surrounding area and that it would also result in significant overshadowing, enclosing effects and loss of light to no. 1 Sylvester Way. As such the proposal was considered contrary to policies QD14 and QD27 of the Local Plan and SPD12 “Design Guidance for Extensions and Alterations”, therefore it was recommended for refusal.

              Public Speakers and Questions

(5)          Mrs Finlayson spoke as an objector. As a resident of the neighbouring property she concurred with the assessment made by the planning officer regarding the severely detrimental impact that the proposals would have on her amenity, her property would be overlooked, overshadowed and overwhelmed. In her view the previous reasons for refusal had not been overcome.

              Debate and Decision Making

(6)          Councillor Inkpin-Leissner stated that he considered that there was little difference between the current scheme and that which had been refused previously, he would be supporting the officer recommendation.

(7)          Councillor C Theobald concurred in that view, stating that the a sloping roof may have been less detrimental overall but that the proposals as they stood would be very detrimental to the neighbouring property.

(8)          Councillor Wares was in agreement that the proposed development would constitute overdevelopment and would result in an unacceptable loss of amenity; he supported the officer recommendation.

(9)          A vote was taken and members voted unanimously that planning permission be refused.

33.5       RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in section 11 of the report and the policies and guidance set out in section 7 and resolves to REFUSE planning permission for the reasons set out in section 11.