Agenda item - BH2017/02736 - 9 Dyke Close, Hove - Householder Planning Consent

Erection of single storey rear extension with rooflights, first floor side extension, roof alterations incorporating front and side rooflights and rear dormer.

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Ward Affected: Hove Park

Erection of single storey rear extension with rooflights, first floor side extension, roof alterations incorporating front and side rooflights and rear dormer.

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 that the proposed two storey extension was considered an appropriate design and would not harm the appearance or character of the street scene. The proposed single extension at the rear of the property was large; however, this was hidden from the public domain. A representation had been received from the neighbouring property regarding the proposed rear extension and the impact; however, there was screening and vegetation on the boundary between the site and neighbouring property.

Public Speaker(s) and Questions

3)               Mr Woodhams spoke in objection to the application on behalf of Mrs Conway, a local resident, and explained that the proposed extension was a single storey that would be on the boundary of her property, 10 Dyke Close, Hove. He noted that the application was not policy compliant and he displayed a drawing that showed the maximum size the extension could be without infringing the neighbours’ amenity. The drawing showed the 45° rule line and Mr Woodhams explained that the proposed extension was 1.25 metres larger than what would be supported by SPD12. He added that he wished for the Planning Committee to invite the applicant to redesign the proposal to be policy compliant and reapply.

4)               In response to Councillor Robins Mr Woodhams explained that the 45° line should be drawn from the middle of the effected window.

5)               Mr Woodhams explained to Councillor Daniel that the affected window at 10 Dyke Close was not covered by foliage and the proposed extension would be one metre from the boundary and would cause overlooking.

6)               In response to the Chair it was noted that the fence was approximately 1.8 metres high and the proposed extension would be 3.2 metres high and the daylight to the window was already compromised by the boundary fence.

7)               Mr Barker spoke in support of the application in his capacity as the agent and explained that the property needed a significant upgrade and the applicant had proposed sympathetic alterations and extensions with full regards to the street scene. The proposed extension at the rear of the property would not overlook the neighbouring property and would improve the current impact by the removal of the three windows on the ground floor level. There would not be an overbearing impact due to the high fence and vegetation and the ground level was significantly lower than 10 Dyke Close.

8)               In response to Councillor Bennett Mr Barker noted that the applicant would consider planting additional vegetation to ensure the proposed extension would not harm the neighbouring property.

Questions for Officers

9)               In response to Councillor Robins the Principal Planning Officer explained that the 45° angle line was set out in the SPD and this had been looked at by officers; however, the guidance varied if there was screening on the boundary line.

10)            In response to Councillor Hyde it was noted that there was approximately three metres between the proposed extension and the neighbouring property.

11)            In response to Councillor C. Theobald it was clarified that the proposed rear extension was 3.2 metres above floor level; however this was on a sloped level and would be significantly lower than the ground floor of the neighbouring property. It was added that the boundary fence was approximately 1.8 metres and the proposed extension would appear as 2.2 metres from the ground level of the neighbouring property.

12)            In response to Councillor Moonan the Planning Manager clarified that the two objections had been received from the current occupier and the owner of 10 Dyke Road Close, Hove. The application was discussed at Planning Committee as Councillor Brown had requested it due to concerns regarding the swimming pool at 10 Dyke Road Close being overlooked.

13)            The Chair then put the application to the vote, and the Officer recommendation that the application be granted was carried by 9 votes in support and 2 abstentions.

73.13    RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation, and resolves to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report.