Agenda item - BH2018/02638- 4 The Park, Rottingdean, Brighton- Householder Planning Consent

Remodelling of existing property incorporating a single storey side extension and creation of a first floor.

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE

Ward Affected: Rottingdean Coastal

              Remodelling of existing property incorporating a single storey side extension and creation of a first floor.

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

Officer Presentation

(2)          The Principal Planning Officer, Jonathan Puplett, introduced the report and gave a presentation by reference to photographs, site plans, drawings and elevational drawings detailing the proposed scheme and its constituent elements, views across the site and showing the immediate vicinity were also shown.

(3)          It was noted that several previous submissions had been made in respect of the application site. Under BH2018/00474 a scheme had been proposed which was similar in nature to the current proposal. A two storey appearance with curved features and full height glazing to the rear at ground and first floor was proposed. This scheme was refused on the grounds that the bulk and flat roof form of the dwelling would be out of keeping with the character of the street scene. Furthermore the bulk was considered to cause a harmful impact upon neighbouring amenity along with increased overlooking from the proposed full height glazing. Following that decision, a duplicate application had been submitted, ref. BH2018/01360 which the council had declined to determine as the council had already set out their position in the refusal of the first application, and the applicant had the right of appeal.

(4)          Following that decision, the applicant had engaged in pre-application discussions on a revised proposal which was an improvement over the previous scheme in that it did retain an element of a pitched roof form; however side gables were proposed along with large flat roof block forms at first floor level to front and rear. The concerns raised at the time of the previous application regarding loss of spacing to the side boundaries of the site and impacts upon neighbouring amenity had not therefore been successfully addressed. That advice had not been followed, as the current application returned to the design style of the original proposal, of flat roof two storey form, a design which the council has previously confirmed is not appropriate due to the relationship of the site with neighbouring properties to either side and the character of the wider street scene. Furthermore a significant increase in bulk was still proposed along with full height glazing to the rear of the property which the council had previously confirmed would cause harm to the amenity of neighbouring properties to either side. The rear elevation included large areas of new full height glazing at first floor level and it was considered that the outlook from the full height windows would result in an unacceptable potential for overlooking and consequent loss of privacy to neighbouring properties on The Park, and to a lesser extent properties on Grand Crescent and Lehman Road West. That impact would be increased by the elevated position of the application property relative to the rear gardens of neighbouring houses, and to the houses to the rear.

(5)          The main considerations in determining the application related of the appearance of the proposed development and its impact on the amenity of neighbours. For the reasons set out in the report it was recommended therefore that the application be refused.

          Public Speakers

(6)          Councillor Mears spoke in her capacity as a Local Ward Councillor detailing her support for the scheme as set out in her letter which had been circulated with the officer report. Councillor Mears stated that she believed that the proposed development was suitable for the site in terms of size, and that it was in keeping with the surrounding areas, from the green in The Park a mix of different properties could be observed, family homes and bungalows with roof extensions. The application was supported by residents living nearby and she did not consider that it would be out of keeping with developments already given permission in the area which had an art-deco feel. Planning permission was being sought for this development and she considered that works which could be executed under permitted development could have a far more detrimental impact.

(7)          Mr Knight, the applicant spoke in support of his application. Mr Knight explained that he had lived at the property with his family for some three years and that they had now outgrown the existing space but wished to stay in the area. Having looked at various design options, which included re-modelling of the existing building they considered that the option put forward using a modern art deco style would enhance the open space in front of the dwelling houses in The Park, was a positive enhancement and was less intrusive than similar treatments which could be seen in the locality (slides indicating where these were located were shown). There were a number of other two-storey buildings and therefore a degree of mutual overlooking. The proposed development would be set forward from its neighbours in order to address this and advice provided by officers had been heeded and with the height and depth of the balcony reduced to address concerns raised. The proposed design had received a lot of support and praise locally.

(8)          Councillor Hyde asked whether given that a pitched roof seemed to be one of the main areas of contention how the applicant had sought to address that. Mr Knight stated that various options had been pursued which would provide his family with the additional space that they required included a gable rather than a flat roof. This had been rejected and so the current scheme had been devised.

(9)          Councillor Miller asked whether the option of constructing a shallow pitched roof had also been considered. Mr Knight confirmed that it had, but however, that had also been considered unacceptable. Councillor Miller also enquired regarding the differences between what could have been achieved as permitted development and by seeking planning permission. Mr Knight explained that various options had been considered during the application process.

(10)       Councillor Bennett asked whether discussions had taken place with the Planning Department and it was confirmed that they had.

(11)       Councillor Cattell, the Chair, stated that Members were required to consider whether the reasons for refusal attached to the previous application had been overcome, including consideration of how the proposed form of development would sit at this location. This was very similar to the previous refused application and in order for the reasons for refusal to set aside it should be  demonstrated that they had been addressed.

Questions of Officers

(11)       Councillor Hyde sought further clarification regarding discussions which had taken place regarding the proposed form of development, the planning history, differences between this scheme and the one which had previously been refused and what would be permitted under permitted development. It was explained that what would be allowed as permitted development was difficult to ascertain as this had not been sought, permitted development would however have applied to a more modest scheme which would have a less significant impact on the neighbouring dwellings than would result from this scheme.

(12)       Councillor Littman also sought confirmation regarding the differences between the current and previous schemes, stating that he was concerned that the differences between this and the previously refused application appeared to be minimal; the development would be situated very close to the boundaries with the neighbouring properties.

              Debate and Decision Making Process

(13)       Councillor’s Hyde and Miller stated that in their view the proposals were acceptable given the diverse building styles within the area and did not consider it to out of keeping with the neighbouring street scene where there was no prevailing style as variety of family homes and extended bungalows could be seen. There was a degree of mutual overlooking already and they did not consider that the proposal would worsen that.

(14)       Councillor O’Quinn stated that a similar situation could be observed in parts of her own ward where a variety of building styles could be observed. She did not consider the proposed scheme was unacceptable and would be voting that planning permission be granted.

(15)       Councillor Daniel stated that she had looked at the varied building heights and styles in the vicinity. A number had a similar bulk and height to that proposed and she did not consider that it would have a detrimental impact.

(16)       Councillor Littman stated that whilst sympathetic to the needs of the applicant’s growing family he concurred with the view of officers and the parish council that the resulting development would sit too close to the neighbouring properties and that he could not therefore support it.

(17)       Councillor C Theobald stated that she was of the view that the proposed development would be far too cramped on the site and was unacceptable as it would be too close to the boundaries of the neighbouring properties.

(18)       Councillor Gilbey, stated that having carefully considered the proposed development in the context of other developments nearby, on balance she would be voting that planning permission be refused. app

(19)       Councillor Cattell, the Chair, stated that in her view regrettably she did not consider that the previous reasons for refusal had been addressed. Notwithstanding that the proposed development was attractive and of a good design in her view it was not appropriate in in its proposed location and would be located far too close to the neighbouring residential developments and would therefore b supporting the officer recommendation that the application be refused.

(20)       A vote was taken and on a vote of 5 to 5, (of the 10 Members present when the vote was taken), the Chair then used her casting vote, stating that she remained of the view that the proposed form of development was unacceptable. Planning permission was therefore refused on the Chair’s Casting Vote.

65.7       RESOLVED - That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report and resolves to refuse planning permission also for the reasons set out in the report.

              Note1: Councillors Bennett, Daniel, Hyde, Miller and O’Quinn voted that planning permission be granted. Councillors Cattell (Chair), Gilbey, Littman, Robins and C Theobald voted that the application be refused. The Chair used her casting vote and on her casting vote planning permission was refused.

              Note 2: Councillor Mac Cafferty was not present at the meeting during consideration of the above application or when the vote was taken.