Agenda item - BH2020/00867, 12 Sussex Road, Hove- Householder Planning Consent

skip navigation and tools

Agenda item

BH2020/00867, 12 Sussex Road, Hove- Householder Planning Consent

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Ward Affected: Central Hove

Minutes:

Erection of a single storey side extension and the installation of 3 no. rooflights.

 

(1)              It was noted that an in depth presentation had been provided by officers in advance of the meeting and was included on the council website detailing the scheme by reference to site plans, elevational drawings and photographs which also showed the proposed scheme in the context of neighbouring development. The main considerations in determining the application related to the design and appearance of the extension, its impact on the wider conservation area and the impact on neighbouring amenity.

 

(2)              It was considered on balance that the proposed form of development would not result in a significant increase in overshadowing towards the neighbouring property at 13 or additional overlooking of properties on Sussex Road and Victoria Cottages. The impact on adjacent properties had been fully considered and no significant harm had been identified. Although concerns had been expressed regarding potential use of the site as a short-term let, change of use had not been applied for and as such that was not a material consideration. Overall the scheme was considered to be acceptable and approval was recommended[PJ1] .

 

Public Speakers

 

(3)        Mr Branagh spoke in his capacity as a neighbouring objector. He did not consider that the proposed scheme was modest it would result in a significant increase to the existing envelope, there was an error in the submitted plans and it would be located very close to the boundary wall and would directly overlook their daughter’s bedroom and their kitchen and garden. Removal of the tree would remove screening and this would not be adequately compensated by providing a bee brick. The scheme would result in overshadowing, overlooking and loss of amenity. The applicant did not live at the property which also gave rise to concerns that it would operate as an Airbnb.

 

(4)        The Democratic Services Officer, Penny Jennings, read out a statement on behalf of the applicant/agent in support of their application, stating that the proposed extension was modest, intended to improve the proportions of the existing room at the rear and in accordance with planning policies, no alterations were proposed to the front elevation in order to maintain the character of the fisherman’s cottages. Concerns had been expressed regarding loss of the tree, but this was only visible from the immediately adjoining properties and from the upper storeys. The arboriculturist had confirmed the tree was inappropriately planted and was likely to damage pipework below ground. The applicants were happy to provide a bee brick as suggested and could confirm that there was no intention to operate an Airbnb.

 

Questions of Officers

 

(5)        Councillor Theobald, considered that loss of the tree was to be regretted and enquired regarding what species it was. The Planning Team Leader, Stewart Glasser confirmed that it was believed to be an ornamental cherry, confirming however that it had not been considered worthy of a TPO and that there were concerns that it was likely to cause damage to underground pipework should it remain in situ.

 

(6)        Councillor Osborne also asked for clarification regarding the tree and also in respect of its proximity to the boundary wall and regarding how the assessment had been made. It was explained that having visited the site officers had made their assessment. Issues relating to the boundary wall would be subject to a party wall agreement which was covered by separate legislation and did not form part of the planning considerations.

 

(7)        Councillor Fishleigh sought confirmation regarding whether the adjoining passageway would be filled in this did not appear to be the case with any of the other properties.

 

            Debate and Decision Making Process

 

(8)        Councillor Theobald stated that she was of the view that the tree to be removed would impact directly on the neighbouring property and would create a greater sense of overlooking and enclosure.

 

(9)        Councillor Fishleigh concurred in that view stating that it was to be regretted having bought a property of this type in a conservation area such far reaching changes were then sought which were detrimental to neighbouring amenity.

 

(10)      Councillor Childs considered that the proposed scheme would result in an unacceptable degree of overlooking to the neighbouring properties. In consequence he was unable to support the officer recommendation.

 

(11)      Councillor Osborne stated that having considered the submitted report and matters raised in response to it, on balance he considered that the proposal was acceptable notwithstanding that loss of the tree was to be regretted.

 

(12)      No further matters were raised and a vote was therefore taken. The 9 Members present voted by 5 to 4 that planning permission be refused on the grounds that the proposed scheme would result in overlooking, loss of privacy and loss of outlook. Councillor Childs then formally proposed that the application be refused and that was seconded by Councillor Henry. Following a brief adjournment a second recorded vote was taken in respect of the alternative recommendation that the application be refused. Councillors Childs, Fishleigh, Henry Theobald and Yates voted that planning permission be refused. Councillors Littman, the Chair, Osborne Miller and Shanks voted that planning permission be granted, therefore the application was refused on a vote of 5 to 4.

 

27.2      RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report but resolves to REFUSE planning permission on the grounds that the proposed development would result in overlooking, loss of privacy and loss of outlook. The final wording of the refusal to be agreed by the Planning Manager in consultation with the proposer and seconder.


 [PJ1]

Supporting documents:

 


Brighton & Hove City Council | Hove Town Hall | Hove | BN3 3BQ | Tel: (01273) 290000 | Mail: info@brighton-hove.gov.uk | how to find us | comments & complaints