Agenda item - BH2017/00128 - 17 Barnfield Gardens, Brighton - Householder Planning Consent

Erection of part single part two storey rear extension with associated alterations.

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Ward Affected: Queen’s Park

Erection of part single part two storey rear extension with associated alterations.

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

Officer Presentation

2)               The Planning Officer introduced the application and gave a presentation with reference to plans, photographs and elevational drawings and clarified that Councillor Barford had not formally objected to the application but had called it to Committee due to the complaints received from the neighbouring residents.

3)               The property was not within the conservation area; however, there were views of the property from the conservation area. The roof of the proposed extension would be slightly visible from the public footpath at the rear of the building; therefore, the Officers deemed this as acceptable and were recommending approval.

Public Speaker(s) and Questions

4)               Mr Kovach spoke in objection to the application in representation for Ms Tolley who lived at 16 Barnfield Gardens, Brighton. He explained that the neighbouring property currently had limited natural light and presented the Committee a photo that showed the restricted light. The proposed extension would restrict the main source of light from the east and he noted that residents were entitled to having a natural light source to their property. He noted that there had been a lack of consultation regarding whether the existing fence would remain and how the construction would take place, including the access to the site. He explained that Ms Tolley had concerns for her garden during the construction and the timescales of when the development would be completed by. He showed a floor plan of the proposed construction, which had been submitted by the applicant, and explained that they were incorrect and the conservatory would project further into the garden than proposed.

5)               In response to Councillor Janio Mr Kovach explained that the conservatory at 16 Barnfield Gardens, Brighton was shown on the plans to be three metres but was actually two metres. He added that this would result in the proposed conservatory being one metre extra than applied for.

6)               In response to Councillor Yates it was explained that the flint wall was approximately five metres from the proposed extension.

7)               Ms Ginart spoke in support of the application in her capacity as the applicant and explained that the objection received from the neighbouring property was regarding overshadowing and light restriction; however, the Planning Officers were satisfied that the proposed extension would not affect the neighbouring properties. She explained that the proposed extension would extend the same depth as the conservatory at 16 Barnfield Gardens, Brighton and noted that since the plans were submitted the neighbouring properties installed a new conservatory. She assured the Committee that she would minimise any disturbance the construction could have on the neighbouring property.

Questions for Officers

8)               In response to Councillor Miller the Planning Officer explained that the single storey element of the extension would not need planning permission; however, the two storey element did need consent.

9)               In response to Councillor Moonan it was confirmed that the neighbouring property had installed a new conservatory since the plans had been changed and was slightly reduced in depth; however, it would not change the officer’s recommendation for approval.

Decision Making Process

10)            The Chair put the application to the vote, and the Officer recommendation that the application be granted was carried by 8 votes in support and 2 abstentions.

58.6       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.