Agenda item - BH2016/02278 - 2 Highview Way, Brighton- Full Planning

Erection of single storey extensions to south and north elevations. Landscaping works including raised decking and new driveway, alterations to front boundary and other associated works.

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE

Ward Affected - Patcham

Erection of single storey extensions to south and north elevations. Landscaping works including raised decking and new driveway, alterations to front boundary and other associated works.

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

Officer Presentation

2)               The Principal Planning Officer, Maria Seale, introduced the application and gave a presentation with reference to plans, photographs and elevational drawings. The large extension was to provide a small garage, a utility room and a large bedroom with an en suite and there was a smaller extension for a dining room. The site was located in a residential area of Patcham and was made up of a mixture of bungalows and houses. The Officer concerns were due to the scale of the proposal, the unusual shaped roof, it would relate poorly to the existing dwelling and would impact poorly on the visual amenity of the street scene. She added that Officers believed it did not comply with the adopted supplementary planning document regarding extensions. A previous application had been refused and the Officer explained that the footprint was the same as the original application. She did; however, highlight the following amendments: the previously proposed decking area had been reduced; and the roof design had been altered. The application was recommended for refusal for the reasons set out in the report.

Public Speaker(s) and Questions

3)               Mr Wade spoke in his capacity as the agent and explained that there had been no objections received from Officers or local residents. The existing side elevation was well screened with trees and shrubbery and the proposal would not overlook neighbouring properties or dominate the street scene. The designs of the extensions were sympathetic to the area.

4)               Councillor Wares spoke in his capacity as a Ward Councillor and noted that both he and Councillor G. Theobald were in support of the application and had consulted on behalf of the applicant with local residents during which time they had not received any negative comments or objections. He explained that the proposed extension was designed to be sympathetic with the existing dwelling and surroundings and it would improve the area. He added that the report exaggerated the concerns with the dominance of the dwelling and it would create a better family home.

5)               In response to Councillor Gilbey, Councillor Wares noted that he considered the side of the property that faced Highview Way to be the primary front; therefore, the extension would be at the rear facing Highview Road.

Questions for Officers

6)               In response to Councillor Moonan the Development and Transport Assessment Manager clarified that a standard parking space size was 4.8 metres in length, whereas the proposed garage was approximately 4.5 metres; therefore, not all vehicles would fit. The Planning Manager explained to Councillor Moonan that the applicant would have to seek agreement from a future Planning Committee if the Members agreed to condition the use of the garage and restricted any changes; however, she advised Members that this was not deemed necessary nor would meet the other tests for the use of conditions.

7)               In response to Councillor Gilbey the Planning Officer noted that it was a prominent extension and the Committee needed to determine whether it would be detrimental to the street scene.

Debate and Decision Making Process

8)               Councillor Hyde noted that no objections had been received and it would be well screened by trees and bushes; therefore, she would not be supporting the Officer recommendation.

9)               Councillor Littman stated that he would be supporting the Officer recommendation as he felt the extension was not essential to the existing dwelling.

10)            Councillor Mac Cafferty explained that the previous application, and similar applications in the past, had been refused and it was important to follow the policy and remain consistent. He noted that he would be supporting the Officer recommendation.

11)            Councillor Morris noted that he agreed with Councillors Littman and Mac Cafferty and had concerns that the applicant could potentially change the use of the garage to an additional bedroom. He therefore stated that he would be supporting the Officer recommendation to refuse.

12)            Councillor C. Theobald noted that the proposed extension would not be intrusive to neighbouring properties and residents had not objected to the proposal. She explained that she would not support the application if it was two storeys; however, one storey would not be detrimental to the street scene.

13)            The Chair noted that the extension was large and would be essentially doubling the footprint of the existing dwelling. She stated that it had not be designed well and appeared to be an additional house, rather than an extension.

14)            Councillor C. Theobald proposed an alternative recommendation to the Officer recommendation to grant the application on the grounds that the extension would not overlook the neighbouring properties and was not overbearing. The proposed alternative recommendation was seconded by Councillor Hyde.

15)            A recorded vote was taken on the proposed alternative recommendation by the 9 Members present. This was not carried with Councillors Hyde and C. Theobald in support, Councillors Gilbey, Littman, Mac Cafferty, Moonan, Morris and Cattell against and Councillor Allen abstaining.

16)            A vote was taken by the 9 Members present on the substantive Officer recommendation that the Committee refuse planning permission; this was carried with 6 in support, 2 objections and 1 abstention.

56.7       RESOLVED – That the Committee resolves to REFUSE planning permission for the reasons set out in paragraph 1.2 of the report.

Note: Councillor Bennett, Miller and Russell-Moyle were not present for the consideration and vote on the application.