Agenda item - BH2015/03868 - 39-41 Withdean Road, Brighton - Full Planning Permission

Variation of condition 2 of BH2013/03456 (demolition of existing houses and erection of 3no. detached houses with associated landscaping) to allow the addition of a roof extension to stairwell and a 'gloriette' timber structure and terrace area to Unit 2.

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Variation of condition 2 of BH2013/03456 (demolition of existing houses and erection of 3no. detached houses with associated landscaping) to allow the addition of a roof extension to stairwell and a 'gloriette' timber structure and terrace area to Unit 2.

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

Officer Introduction

2)               The Planning Manager – Major Planning Applications introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to plans, photographs and elevational drawings. It was explained that the application was for an amendment from the permission granted on April 2014. The application sought permission for an extension of the stairway to a new ‘gloriette’ timber structure and new terrace area on the top of the main flat roof of Unit 2. The three houses on the site had been constructed and the application was for the centre house. Unit 1 had permission granted for an extended stairway, gloriette and roof terrace. A condition had been recommended to restrict the use of the outside space on the roof. The gloriette and stairway would be in the centre of the roof and would be less visible from the street and would not make a significant impact on the neighbours and adjoining properties. The conditions from the previous application would be added to the new planning permission if granted by the Committee as the variation would result in the granting of a new planning permission. The application was recommended to grant for the reasons set out in the report.

Public Speaker(s) and Questions

3)         Mr Ronnie Smith spoke in objection to the application in his capacity as a local resident. He explained to the Committee that the development would not be identical to Unit 1, as Unit 1 had a gloriette that was less visible from key views around the site. The gloriette and extended stairway would make the property significantly higher and would overlook the neighbouring properties. He was of the view that the Committee should have viewed the site from the neighbouring properties gardens, as part of their site visit, and disagreed with the Planning Officer’s view that there was ample screening. There would be significant noise and disruption for the neighbouring residents when the work was taking place if the application was agreed, and the application was a means to add an additional floor to the property by stealth. He also expressed concern with the manner in which the neighbour consultation had been conducted.

4)            In response to Councillor Barradell, Mr Smith stated that he lived in the property behind Unit 2, and he was of the belief that the terrace area would overlook into his garden and property.

5)               In response to Councillor Miller, it was explained that he could not see the gloriette and terrace area on Unit 1.

6)               In response to Councillor Theobald the Planning Manager – Major Planning Applications showed the Committee photos from the objector’s garden that had been submitted by Mr Smith.

7)               Councillor K. Norman spoke in objection to the application in his capacity as a ward Councillor. He explained that the application should not be granted because of the loss of amenity it would cause in the area and to surrounding residents. The area the properties were located in was comprised of detached family houses and the new development overlooked the neighbouring properties. It was explained that the residents and their properties needed to be considered and that further additions to the scheme should be refused. The proposed gloriette and terrace area would add another level to the property and this would impact on the surrounding residents. Concern was also expressed that the areas of the roof prohibited for use, could easily be accessed by future owners of the properties.

8)               Mr Foster spoke in his capacity as the agent acting on behalf of the applicant and explained that the application was for the structure that was previously agreed for Unit 1. The development on Unit 2 did not restrict the neighbouring properties views and would not cause any overlooking. The property was a significant distance away from the neighbouring houses and would not have a significant impact on the amenity of the area. The extended stairwell would provide some screening from overlooking into neighbouring gardens. He noted Officers were recommending that the scheme be granted approval and the proposed landscaping scheme would be carried out in full.

Questions for Officers

9)               In response to Councillor Barradell it was clarified that the roof would not be accessible from the terrace as the chimney blocked access to the skyframe.

10)            In response to Councillor Gilbey the Planning Manager explained that there was no overall increase in the height of the property because all the proposals were below the highest point of the building, which was the chimney.

11)            The Planning Manager stated to Councillor Moonan that the previous objection to the development on Unit 1 was because of the obstruction of views that would be detrimental to the neighbours.

12)            In response to Councillor Miller, it was confirmed that the windows of the properties were high and narrow and had been designed so they did not overlook other properties. The overlooking from the proposed roof terrace would be blocked by the chimney. It was also clarified that the removal of permitted development rights would prevent further extensions without planning permission.

Debate and Decision Making Process

13)            Councillor C. Theobald noted that it would have been beneficial to see the potential impact on the neighbouring properties during the site visit. She believed that the properties were overbearing and the addition of a gloriette would make them even more so. She stated that she would not be supporting the Officer recommendation.

14)            Councillor Miller agreed with Councillor C. Theobald and stated that he was concerned with the property overlooking the neighbouring houses, and the application would add an additional storey from what was originally agreed.

15)            Councillor Inkpin-Leissner commented that the highest point of the house should not be measured from the chimney but from the roof line of the property.

16)            Councillor Barradell noted that the units were not suitable for the area. She explained that she was unsure if the overlooking onto the neighbouring properties would be significant because the majority of the development would be screened with trees. She added that it would not have a significant impact on the street seen as the bulk of the building was already visible and developed.

17)            Councillor Littman expressed concern that the development was too high and bulky; therefore he would not be supporting the Officer recommendation.

18)            A vote was taken by the twelve Members present and the Officer recommendation that permission be granted was not carried on a vote of 2 in support with 7 against and 3 abstentions. Councillor C. Theobald proposed reasons for refusal and these were seconded by Councillor Gilbey, a short adjournment was then held to allow the Chair, Councillor C. Theobald, Councillor Gilbey; the Planning Manager – Applications and the Senior Solicitor to draft reasons for refusal. These were then read to the Committee and it was agreed that they reflected those that had been put forward. A recorded vote was then held and Councillors: Gilbey, C. Theobald, Inkpin-Leissner, Littman, Miller, Moonan and Morris voted that permission be refused; Councillors: Cattell and Mac Cafferty voted that permission not be refused; and Councillors: Barradell, Bennett and Hyde abstained.

19)            RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration the Officer recommendation, but resolves to REFUSE planning permission for the reasons set out below:

Reason 1

The proposed development would result in unacceptable overlooking of surrounding neighbours to the detriment of their amenity contrary to policy QD27 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan 2005.

Reason 2

The proposed development by reason of increased height represents an overdevelopment of the site contrary to policy CP12 of the Brighton & Hove City Plan Part 1.