Agenda item - BH2018/02359 - 3 Meadow Close, Hove - Full Planning

Demolition of existing three bedroom bungalow (C3) and erection of 4 bedroom two storey dwelling (C3).

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Ward Affected: Hove Park

              Demolition of existing three bedroom bungalow (C3) and erection of 4 bedroom two storey dwelling (C30

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

              Officer Presentation

(2)          The Senior Planning Officer, Laura Hamlyn, introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to photographs, site plans and elevational drawings detailing the proposed scheme.

(3)          It was noted that the main considerations in determining the application related to the impact of the proposed development on the appearance and character of the wider street scene and the amenities of adjacent occupiers. The current application was a resubmission following approval of BH2016/06188 which had been granted permission for remodelling of the existing bungalow which had included the creation of an additional floor, side and rear extensions and associated roof extensions and associated alterations. The bulk and massing of the previously approved scheme was broadly similar to the current proposal, except that a two storey rear extension was now proposed. The differences between the previously approved scheme and that for which permission was now requested were highlighted.

(4)          The impact on neighbouring dwellings had been assessed with regard to the potential to harm amenity, including daylight, sunlight, outlook and privacy. Two Meadow Close was situated adjacent to the application site to the west and at a lower ground level. The previous scheme had no significant impact on that property. This application would by virtue of its increased height have some impact on the existing conservatory at 2 Meadow Close. Whilst there would be some loss of light to the glazed roof there was sufficient glazing to the rear and side that the impact would not be so harmful as to warrant refusal. A daylight and sunlight report had been submitted during the course of the application which had identified no significant impacts on daylight location within the adjoining property. Overall, it was considered that the size, design and layout of the proposed dwelling would provide adequate levels of accommodation, circulation, storage, light, sunlight ventilation and outlook and therefore approval was recommended.

              Public Speakers

(5)          Dr Evans spoke as a neighbouring objector setting out his objections to the proposed scheme. Dr Evans explained that the proposed development would have a negative impact on his amenity and quality of life. The proposed development would tower over their conservatory and would overlook their patio and garden area and result in a significant loss of privacy. They had no objection to the principle of development but considered that it would have been possible to design the proposed development in a manner which did impact so negatively on their dwelling.

(6)          Mrs Peters, the applicant, spoke in support of her application stating that they had liaised closely with the planning department and had sought to design a high quality sustainable lifetime home. It was considered that their proposal to demolish the existing building would less impact than if they had built extensions to the existing building in line with the extant permission. The roof slope of the proposal would be lower and in their view the design and appearance of the proposed form of development was in keeping with the neighbouring street scene.

(7)          Councillor Miller noted that it appeared that the number of balconies to the front of the property had increased from that associated with the previous scheme and asked for clarification as to the rationale for that; also whether consideration had been given to utilising the roof space. It was explained that it was not intended that these balconies (one of which was a juliet balcony), would be used as amenity space, notwithstanding that it would provide uninterrupted views to the sea. It was explained the solution proposed was considered to be more suitable.

              Questions of Officers

(8)          Councillor Miller referred to the proposed balconies and sought confirmation as to whether a condition could be added requiring the proposed balconies to be obscure glazed if the Committee were minded to approve the application. It was confirmed that it could.

(9)          Councillor C Theobald asked to see photographs indicating the height and proximity of the upper storey to the neighbouring conservatory.

              Debate and Decision Making Process

(10)       Councillor Miller stated that whilst having no objection to the principle the proposed development he was unable to support the application as presented as he considered that there would be a significant and detrimental impact on the neighbouring dwelling. He considered that the views from the development would be achieved at the expense of no 2 Meadow Close and that amendments could and should have been found which addressed the applicants’ needs without a negative impact

(11)       Councillor C Theobald agreed considering that the proposed form of development would be located very close to the boundary with the neighbouring property.

(12)       Councillor Hyde considered that in its present form the application was unneighbourly, full height ceilings would be achieved at the sacrifice of neighbouring amenity.

(13)       Councillor Littman concurred with all that had been said considering that the proposed scheme would be overbearing on the neighbouring conservatory and would be negative.

(14)       Councillor Robins concurred wholeheartedly with all that had been said and that he would not be voting in support of the application.

(15)       Councillor Cattell, the Chair, stated that as views would be angled towards the applicant’s garden she did not consider that the proposed scheme would be unneighbourly and would therefore be voting in support of the officer’s recommendations.

(16)       A vote was taken and on a vote of 5 to 1 by the 6 Members of the Committee who were present when the vote was taken the officer recommendation was overturned and planning permission was refused. A further vote was then taken and reasons for refusal to be drafted subsequently were put forward. On a recorded vote was then taken and Councillors Hyde, Littman, Miller, Robins and C Theobald voted that planning permission be refused for the reasons set out below (subsequently drafted and agreed with officers). Councillor Cattell, the Chair, voted that planning permission be granted; therefore planning permission was refused.

65.14    RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation and resolves to REFUSE planning permission on the grounds that the proposed rear projection would result in an overbearing and over-dominant feature that would have an un-neighbourly impact on the conservatory and rear garden to no 2 Meadow Close. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy QD 27 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan 2005.

Note: Councillors Bennett, Daniel, Gilbey, Inkpin-Leissner, Mac Cafferty and O’Quinn were not present during consideration of the above application or when the vote was taken.