Agenda item - BH2017/00284 - Wayland Paddock, 41 Wayland Avenue, Brighton - Householder Planning Consent

Re-modelling and extensions to dwelling including associated works.

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Ward Affected: Withdean

Re-modelling and extensions to dwelling including associated works.

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 and explained there was existing permission on the site for a similar development; however, the current proposal would be larger due to the extension at the rear of the property. It was also result in the development being closer to 1 Dyke Road Place. The ground floor windows of 1 Dyke Road Place were of concern and the proposal would be visible; however, this was not a reason for refusal. There would not be significant impact on the sunlight or daylight into the ground floor of neighbouring property and this had been demonstrated by the submission of a 25 degree daylight angle plan by the applicant.

Public Speaker(s) and Questions

3)               Mr Gilbert spoke in objection to the application in his capacity as a local resident and explained that their property, 1 Dyke Road Place, Brighton, would be immediately affected by the development. The ground floor windows that faced the proposal was the kitchen area and he explained that his family used this space often. He noted that there was currently a boundary wall outside the windows and was approximately one metre and due to the size and location of the boundary wall the sunlight and daylight was already restricted. The development would impact on the kitchen and would be a loss of amenity. He noted that the proposed design and colour would be contrary to policy QD14.

4)               In response to Councillor Miller Mr Gilbert explained that the proposal was considerably taller than the current boundary wall that restricted the sunlight and daylight.

5)               The Democratic Services Officer read the following statement provided by Councillors Taylor, A. Norman and K. Norman:

“This application follows many in the last ten years on the site. We accept that the deteriorating underlying structure of the dwelling requires change but we are concerned about the impact of this scheme on the neighbouring property of 1 Dyke Road Place.

1 Dyke Road Place is at the lower elevation and the occupiers have concerns about the impact on their property. As our objection letters state we are concerned about the potential loss of light such a development will have on the low lying windows of this property.

As members have seen from the plans, the current house is very close to the boundary, this therefore makes any development close to the boundary at the Wayland Paddock have a disproportionate effect on the current occupants.

We are also concerned that the visual bulk of the structure will also adversely affect the occupants of No 1 Dyke Road Place.

Whilst we do understand that the residents of Wayland Paddock are also a constituent and understand their desire to build a family home to their taste and needs, we do feel that if some of the design aspects could be modified as to the above, then this development could proceed to the benefit of all parties.

We therefore urge the members of the committee vote against this application.”

6)               Mr Thompson spoke in support of the application in his capacity as the agent and explained that he had consulted closely with the Planning Officers who had not raised an objection regarding the impact on the neighbouring property. The 25 degree daylight angle plan demonstrated that there would not be an impact of daylight to 1 Dyke Road Place, Brighton and would retain the neighbours “right to light”. The previous application was for two four-bedroom dwellings and these were considerable higher than the current proposal. Following an objection from Arboriculture the application had been amended to retain some of the existing trees on the site.

7)               In response to Councillors Janio and Miller Mr Thompson explained that the roof was the same height on the entire proposal; however, it was cropped in by the neighbouring windows to ensure there would not be an impact on daylight.

Questions for Officers

8)               In response to Councillor Wealls the Principal Planning Officer noted that the roof was indented opposite the neighbouring windows and was compliant with the 25 degree daylight angle.

9)               In response to Councillor Miller it was explained that the proposed roof height was approximately 3.7 metres. This was lower than the existing roof; however, the eaves height was to be higher.

10)            The Principal Planning Officer confirmed to Councillor Moonan that the proposal was policy compliant and the Officer’s recommendation was for approval as there would not be a significant impact on the neighbouring property.

Debate and Decision Making Process

11)            Councillor Miller stated that he would not be supporting the Officer’s recommendation as the proposal was within close proximity to the neighbouring property and was not policy compliant as it would have an overbearing nature. He noted that the applicant could have used other areas on the site for the development that would not impact the neighbouring properties.

12)            Councillor Janio noted that the development would affect the amenity of the neighbouring property and would not be supporting the Officer’s recommendation.

13)            Councillor Yates noted that 1 Dyke Road Place, Brighton was currently affected by the boundary wall and the proposed development would not make a significant impact. He would; therefore, be supporting the Officer’s recommendation.

14)            Councillor Moonan noted that the proposal was too close to the boundary and it was a large site where the applicant could develop elsewhere. She stated that the application was; however, policy compliant and would be supporting the Officer’s recommendation.

15)            The Chair noted that the application was policy compliant and this would be assessed by the inspector if it was refused.

16)            The Chair then put the application to the vote, and the Officer recommendation that the application be granted was carried by 6 votes in support and 4 against.

58.5       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.

              Note: Councillors Gilbey and Inkpin-Leissner were not present for the consideration and vote of this application.