Woodingdean Ward

App Type:

Householder Planning Consent



20 Downland Road Brighton BN2 6DJ     



Roof alterations incorporating raising ridge height.  Erection of part one part two storey front, rear and side extensions for remodelling of existing dwelling.



Steven Dover, tel:

Valid Date:



Con Area:


Expiry Date: 



Listed Building Grade: 




Mel Humphrey RICS  C.Build E MCABE   39 Northease Drive   Hove   BN3 8PQ                 


Mr Terry Blount   20 Downland Road   Brighton   BN2 6DJ                 




1.               RECOMMENDATION


1.1.          That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out below and resolves to GRANT planning permission subject to the following Conditions and Informatives:



1.         The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved drawings listed below.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

Plan Type



Date Received

Proposed Drawing


22 December 2020

Location and block plan


22 December 2020


2.         The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To ensure that the Local Planning Authority retains the right to review unimplemented permissions.


3.         A bee brick shall be incorporated within the external wall of the development hereby approved and shall be retained thereafter.

Reason: To enhance the biodiversity of the site and to comply with Policy CP10 of the Brighton & Hove City Plan Part One and Supplementary Planning Document SPD11 Nature Conservation and Development. 


4.         The dormer windows in the side elevations of the development hereby permitted shall be obscure glazed and non-opening, unless the parts of the window(s) which can be opened are more than 1.7 metres above the floor of the room in which the window is installed, and thereafter permanently retained as such.

Reason:  To safeguard the privacy of the occupiers of the adjoining property and to comply with policies QD14 and QD27 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.



1.         In accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy SS1 of the Brighton & Hove City Plan Part One the approach to making a decision on this planning application has been to apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development.  The Local Planning Authority seeks to approve planning applications which are for sustainable development where possible.


2.         The applicant is advised that the application of translucent film to clear glazed windows does not satisfy the requirements of this condition


3.         Where possible, bee bricks should be placed in a south facing wall in a sunny location at least 1 metre above ground level.



2.               SITE LOCATION 


2.1.          The application relates to a detached bungalow located on the southern side of Downland Road. The area has an eclectic mix of styles and sizes of housing - with no predominant style to this side of the highway. To the east lies a larger bungalow which has had extensive and large modifications to the roof form. To the west are the rear of two-storey semi-detached properties which front onto Warren Rise.



3.               RELEVANT HISTORY 






4.1.          Planning permission is sought for the remodelling of the existing dwelling including raising the ridge height of the roof; and the erection of a part one-, part two-storey front, rear and side extensions.



5.               REPRESENTATIONS 


5.1.          Fifteen (15) total letters have been received five (5) of which are repeats.


5.2.          Seven (7) unique letters and five (5) duplicate letters have been received objecting  to the proposed development on the following grounds:  

·         Height

·         Amenity harm

·         Overshadowing

·         Overdevelopment 

·         Would affect views

·         Poor design

·         Traffic

·         Noise


5.3.          Three (3) unique letters have been received supporting  the proposed development on the following grounds:  

·         Good design

·         No impact on amenity



6.               CONSULTATIONS  






7.1.          In accordance with Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, this decision has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in the National Planning Policy Framework, the Development Plan, and all other material planning considerations identified in the "Considerations and Assessment" section of the report 


7.2.          The development plan is: 

·         Brighton & Hove City Plan Part One (adopted March 2016) 

·         Brighton & Hove Local Plan 2005 (retained policies March 2016); 

·         East Sussex, South Downs and Brighton & Hove Waste and   Minerals Plan (adopted February 2013); 

·         East Sussex, South Downs and Brighton & Hove Waste and Minerals Sites Plan (adopted February 2017);  

·         Shoreham Harbour Joint Area Action Plan (adopted October 2019); 


Due weight has been given to the relevant retained policies in the Brighton & Hove Local Plan 2005 according to their degree of consistency with the NPPF. 



8.               RELEVANT POLICIES 


The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 


Brighton & Hove City Plan Part Two 

Policies in the Proposed Submission City Plan Part 2 do not carry full statutory weight but are gathering weight as the Plan proceeds through its stages. They provide an indication of the direction of future policy. Since 23 April 2020, when the Plan was agreed for submission to the Secretary of State, it has gained weight for the determination of planning applications.  The weight given to the key CPP2 policies considered in determining this application is set out below where applicable.  


DM20           Protection of Amenity - Significant weight

DM21           Extensions and alterations - Significant weight


Brighton & Hove City Plan Part One 

SS1              Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development


Brighton & Hove Local Plan (retained policies March 2016): 

QD14           Extensions and alterations

QD27           Protection of Amenity

CP10            Biodiversity


Supplementary Planning Documents: 

SPD12         Design Guide for Extensions and Alterations

SPD11         Nature Conservation & Development





9.1.          The main considerations in the determination of this application relate to the impact of the proposed development on the appearance and character of the building and the wider area; and the impact on the amenities of adjacent occupiers. 


Design and Appearance 

9.2.          The remodelling of the existing bungalow would see a complete change in form, creating a larger property that is extended in depth and height, with a very different appearance. It is recognised, and has been pointed out in various objections, that the bulk and massing would increase substantially over the existing dwelling. The front elevation would sit further forward than the existing dwelling does, but this would bring it more into line with the building line in this part of the road is considered acceptable.


9.3.          The proposed side dormers, while not necessarily considered an enhancement to the design, would be similar to other dwellings in the area, and would not cause harm to the appearance of the proposed building, as they would match in terms of material and style. The dormer windows, which would serve a dressing room and a bathroom, have been detailed as being obscurely glazed which would be conditioned accordingly.


9.4.          The rear of the property currently comprises two separate flat-roofed extensions and it is therefore considered that the alterations at the rear with hip and gable roof would improve the appearance of the host building, offering a more integrated design, with the increased glazing creating a more contemporary façade. The proposed works would not extend the building any further towards to the rear boundary.


9.5.          The raising of the ridge height, together with the increase in the bulk of the roof, would increase the prominence of the building. However, its overall height would be comparable with surrounding properties and development in the area so is considered to be in keeping.


9.6.          The new elevations, although very different from the existing, are also taking cues from forms of development in the area, mixing established with modern design and this approach is supported.


9.7.          The width of the property would increase to encompass the majority of the plot and remove the existing garage, although a gap would be retained between the side elevations and the plot boundaries. This increase is considered acceptable as the hipped roof and barn-ends would ensure the plot does not appear overdeveloped when viewed from the street. It is noted that many of the properties in the locale similarly extend across almost the full width of the plot and the scheme would therefore be in keeping with the character of the area.


9.8.          The proposed works would be constructed in imperial brick with part white painted render and part grey Marley tile hanging to elevations. The new roof would be part hipped with Marley tiles in anthracite grey. The dormers would be flat roofed and finished with Marley grey tile hanging. The new fenestration would be finished in a grey colour. 


9.9.          The existing building offers little architectural merit and its retention or a design reflecting its appearance is not considered necessary. The remodelled property would not appear incongruous or disruptive through design or form in the existing varied streetscene. The proposal is not considered to be out of keeping of development in the wider area. 


9.10.       Therefore, the proposed extensions and works are considered to be a suitable addition to the building that would not harm its appearance or that of the wider area, in accordance with policy QD14 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan, Policy DM21 of CPP2,  and SPD12 guidance. 


Impact on Amenity 

9.11.       Policy QD27 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan states that planning permission for any development or change of use will not be granted where it would cause material nuisance and loss of amenity to the proposed, existing and/or adjacent users, residents, occupiers or where it is liable to be detrimental to human health.


9.12.       The form of the extension extending to the front, side and rear, with revisions to the roof, is not considered to substantially harm neighbours' amenity. The remodelled property would be slightly set in from the side boundaries, with the roof design reducing any potential overbearing and overshadowing effects, particularly with regard to No.22 Downland Road. The properties to the west and south in Warren Rise and Channel View Road are sufficiently distant that no overshadowing or overbearing impacts would occur.


9.13.       It is acknowledged by Officers that the revised form and scale of the property would increase its visibility to some neighbours. However, despite objections concerning the loss of views, it is noted that a right to a view and retention of the same is not a material consideration in the determination of planning applications. The immediate area is characterised by large extensions and changes to properties, and by relatively large front and rear gardens. In this context, the impact of the scheme is not considered to be significant. It is not considered that the neighbours’ outlook would be so impacted as to warrant refusal, especially given the distances and the degree of interruption that is involved.


9.14.       The new rear façade would increase the amount of glazing at both the ground and first floor levels, and therefore the potential for overlooking at the upper level. The proposed first floor windows would be some 25m from the façade of the dwelling to the rear (south) with minimal loss of privacy at this distance. There would be some increased potential for the overlooking of neighbouring gardens, but other properties already have rear facing windows at first floor height so a degree of mutual overlooking of rear amenity areas currently exists. The degree of harm to amenity is not, in this context, considered so significant to warrant refusal.


9.15.       The new front facing fenestration would only overlook front gardens and highway, limiting any harm to private amenity. The new side dormers would be obscure glazed to prevent any overlooking to adjacent properties.


9.16.       The increase in noise through the use of the remodelled property has also been raised in objections, but as no change of use is proposed and it would continue as a single residential property, any increase through normal use is not considered substantial over the existing situation and therefore acceptable.


9.17.       Therefore, it is not considered that the proposed extension and works would cause any significant harm to amenity, in accordance with Policy QD27 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan and Policy DM20 of CPP2. 


Other Matters 

9.18.       A condition requiring a bee brick has been attached to improve ecology outcomes on the site in accordance with the Policy CP10 of the Brighton & Hove City Plan Part One and Supplementary Planning Document SPD11 Nature Conservation and Development.   


9.19.       In view of the ongoing COVID-19 travel restrictions and in lieu of a site visit, photos of the site have been obtained from the applicant, which, along with aerial photographs and other material, is considered sufficient for a robust recommendation to be made by officers.



9.20.       The proposed development is considered to enhance the host property and bring improvements to the streetscene. No significant harm to neighbouring amenity is identified. Approval is therefore recommended.





10.1.       Under the Regulations of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) 2010 (as amended), Brighton & Hove City Council adopted its CIL on 23 July 2020 and began charging on all CIL liable planning applications on and from the 5 October 2020. It is estimated that the amount of CIL liability for this application is £0, due to the residential extension exemption submitted. The exact amount will be confirmed in the CIL liability notice which will be issued as soon as it practicable after the issuing of planning permission.  



11.            EQUALITIES  

None identified.