Agenda item - BH2017/00767 - 7 Meadow Close, Hove - Householder Planning Consent

Erection of additional storey with associated alterations and single storey rear extension.

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Ward Affected: North Portslade

Erection of additional storey with associated alterations and single storey rear extension.

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

Officer Presentation

2)               The Principal Planning Officer introduced the application and gave a presentation with reference to plans, photographs and elevational drawings. It was noted that there was a previously refused application for a three storey dwelling, with a basement level, of a contemporary design. The current revised application had a reduction in height and bulk with a more sympathetic design that was in keeping with the street scene. The removal of the top storey would ensure there was not a significant problem with overlooking to the neighbouring properties. The main consideration was the impact of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the street scene.

Public Speaker(s) and Questions

3)               Mr Reeves spoke in objection to the application in his capacity as a local resident and stated that he lived in the property adjacent to 7 Meadow Close. The applicant did not consult the local residents until Councillor Brown had requested it on their behalf. He explained that the plans submitted by the agent were incorrect. This height would be higher than the previously refused application. He requested that the Committee agree to defer the application to ensure accurate plans could be considered. It was stated that a reduction in the roof pitch by 30% would improve the application considerably.

4)               In response to Councillor Yates Mr Reeves explained that the design was not in keeping with the street scene and if the pitched roof was reduced by 30% then this would reduce the overall bulk.

5)               Mr Carter spoke in support to the application in his capacity as the agent. He stated that the applicant wanted to extend their house as more space was needed to move their mother in. The proposed scheme was significantly reduced compared to the previously refused application and it would be in keeping with the street scene. The Planning Officers had deemed that the application was acceptable and there would not have a negative impact on the neighbouring properties. He explained that the plans submitted were accurate and suggested that if Members had concerns then they could agree a condition to restrict the height.

Questions for Officers

6)               In response to Councillor Morris it was explained that the pitched roof significantly reduced the bulk compared to the flat roof proposed in the previously refused application. It was also explained that Councillors could agree a condition to restrict the height to what had been applied for if it was felt necessary.

7)               In response to Councillor Inkpin-Leissner the Principal Planning Officer explained that the height, mass and bulk were assessed when the application was submitted.

Debate and Decision Making Process

8)               Councillor Hyde stated that the design was much improved since the previously refused application; it would not overlook the neighbouring properties and would fit well within the street scene.

9)               Councillor Bennett noted that the design would be in keeping with the street scene and would not if the pitched roof was reduced.

10)            Councillor Hill explained that she was surprised that 33 objections had been received regarding the overlooking and overshadowing of the proposed scheme. She added that she would be supporting the Officer’s recommendation.

11)            Councillor Morris noted that the applicant had reduced the bulk of the proposal since the previous application and would be supporting the Officer’s recommendation.

12)            Councillor Inkpin-Leissner thanked the Officers for working alongside the applicant and noted that he would be supporting the Officer’s recommendation.

13)            The Chair then put the application to the vote, and the Officer recommendation that the application be granted was carried unanimously.

44.7       RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation, and resolves to GRANT permission for the reasons set out in the report and the additional condition set out below:

Additional Condition 5:

No development shall commence until full details (referenced as Ordnance Datum by means of spot heights) of the ridge heights of the existing properties at Nos 6, 7 and 8 Meadow Close and the proposed finished floor levels and ridge height of the development hereby approved at No 7 Meadow Close, have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.  The development shall then be implemented in accordance with the approved level details. 

Reason: As this matter is fundamental to the acceptable delivery of the permission to safeguard the amenities of nearby properties and to safeguard the character and appearance of the area, in addition to comply with policies QD27 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan and CP12 of the Brighton & Hove City Plan Part One.