Rottingdean Coastal Ward

App Type:

Householder Planning Consent



36 Gorham Avenue Rottingdean Brighton BN2 7DP    



Erection of single storey first floor rear extension, porch to front, new pitched roof over garage and 1no front rooflight.



Vinicius Pinheiro, tel: 292454

Valid Date:



Con Area:


Expiry Date: 



Listed Building Grade:  N/A




Mel Humphrey   9 Aldsworth Avenue   Goring By Sea   Worthing   BN12 4XQ              


Mr Mike and Gill Greenhalgh   36 Gorham Avenue   Rottingdean   Brighton   BN2 7DP              



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



26 January 2023

Location and block plan


8 November 2022


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.         The walls of the extension hereby approved shall be composite cladding. All         other external finishes of the development hereby permitted shall match in           material, colour, style, bonding and texture those of the existing building.

            Reason:  To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development in the    interests of the visual amenities of the area and to comply with policies DM18 of      Brighton & Hove City Plan Part 2 and CP12 of the Brighton & Hove City Plan       Part One.


 4.        At least one 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.




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          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 site relates to a two-storey detached dwellinghouse located on     the south-eastern side of Gorham Avenue. 





3.1       None





4.1       Planning consent is sought for the erection of single storey first floor rear   extension, porch to front, new pitched roof over garage and 1no front rooflight.


4.2       Amended plans have been received during the course of the application to            retain the flat roof over the rear part of the existing garage.





            One (1) letter has been received objecting the proposed development on   the      following grounds: 


·                     Overshadowing

·                     Impacts on daylight/sunlight


            Councillor's Fishleigh has objected to the proposal: a copy of the representation is attached.


6.         CONSULTATIONS  


            Rottingdean Parish Council:   No Objection  

            Rottingdean Parish Council examined the proposals for a single storey first floor rear extension, porch to the front and new pitched roof.


            The rear extension is planned as a first-floor extension to existing ground floor      rooms and wouldn't increase the footprint of the property. It wouldn't be directly            from the road and appears to be proportionate compared with neighbouring       properties.


            The front porch and new pitched roof over garage would be visible from the           road, but the style and materials planned would be in keeping with the other   local properties, so it's not considered that this would have a negative impact on the street scene.





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.


            The Development Plan comprises:


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

·      Brighton & Hove City Plan Part Two (adopted October 2022)

·      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 JAAP (adopted October 2019). 





            The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)  


Rottingdean Neighbourhood Plan   

The policies in Rottingdean Neighbourhood Plan carry limited weight at present but will gain weight as the Plan proceeds through its stages.


The draft Neighbourhood Plan (NP) was submitted to the Council in early 2023.   The draft NP reflects previous local community and stakeholder engagement undertaken across the Neighbourhood Area by the Parish Council including a            period of public consultation under Regulation 14 of the NP Regulations in 2021.    The Council published the draft Plan for pre-submission (Regulation 16)           consultation in February 2023. The next steps for the plan are for it to be            submitted for examination by an independent examiner. The NP examination is    likely to commence in the summer/autumn of 2023.


            The policies relevant to the present application are:


            H2:       Design



            Brighton & Hove City Plan Part One:  

            SS1    Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development

            CP10  Biodiversity

            CP12  Urban design


            Brighton & Hove City Plan Part Two:  

            DM1 Housing Quality, Choice and Mix

            DM18 High quality design and places

            DM20 Protection of Amenity

            DM21 Extensions and alterations

            DM37 Green Infrastructure and Nature Conservation


            Supplementary Planning Documents:  

            SPD11 Nature Conservation & Development

            SPD12 Design Guide for Extensions and Alterations





9.1       The main considerations in the determination of this application relate to design   and appearance of the proposed alterations and whether the proposal would    have a detrimental impact on neighbouring amenity.


9.2       Amended plans have been received since submission of the application to            retain the flat roof over the rear part of the existing garage, in order to mitigate            harm to the amenities of the eastern sited neighbouring property, as discussed             in more detail below.    


            Design and Appearance:  


9.3       The proposal is considered to be acceptable. 


9.4       The application seeks permission for an additional storey on the existing single    storey rear extension. The proposed development would not increase the depth           of the existing rear extension. The walls of the extension would be composite      cladding. The roof of the extension would be dual pitched, would be set lower          from the main ridge and one part of the dual roof would be set lower than the           other.


9.5       Although the cladding material of the proposed extension is not in keeping with    the existing materials of the property, it is noted that the site is not a listed           building and does not lie within a conservation area. The proposal would be         contained to the rear of the property and would have limited visibility from the      public realm. Furthermore, it is noted that some of the properties along the road         provide a variety of materials and colours to the front elevation. Therefore, the             proposed cladding is considered to be acceptable.


9.6       The locality is residential in character with detached properties dominating in the vicinity of the application site.  Notwithstanding this, there is a clear lack of      uniformity between properties within the street scene.


9.7       The highest ridge of the dual roof extension would be set down approximately      0.12m from the ridge of the existing main roof. This would ensure that the           resulting two storey extension would remain subservient to the main      dwellinghouse. It would also be in accordance with SPD12: Extensions and        Alterations guidance which states that: "Two storey rear extensions should             generally have a roof form which reflects that of the host building. A pitched roof extension should normally be set lower than the main ridge of the roof." The    proposed extension is therefore considered a sympathetic addition to the host    dwellinghouse that would not be detrimental to its appearance.


9.8       There is no objection to the proposal on design or appearance grounds.  It is             acknowledged that the proposed extensions would add significant bulk to the        building.  However, it is well designed in terms of relating to the existing features       of the building and is not considered visually intrusive or overly dominant.  


9.9       A wide variety of ground floor, two storey and roof extensions exist within the        immediate and wider area so the proposed extension is unlikely to be overly     harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding area, and certainly       not to a degree sufficient to warrant a refusal of the application, particularly as it            would be to the rear, so would have no impact on the streetscene.


9.10    The proposal also includes a porch to the front of the property. A variety of            porch extensions are visible within the immediate vicinity of the site that are not   uniform in appearance. Therefore, there is no objection to this addition.


9.11    The design and materials of the new pitched roof over garage would not disrupt   the visual of the streetscene, considering the variety of materials and design of   the neighbouring properties. The garage is set back from the front elevation and     is not highly visible from all parts of the streetscene and it is considered to be      acceptable.


9.12    The proposal seeks to install a single rooflight to the front elevation. The    rooflight will be positioned in between the existing rear dormers and its size is in      line with the guidance set out in SPD12: Extensions and Alterations.


9.13    The new window to the side elevation would match the materials and design of    the existing ground floor window and it is considered to be acceptable.


9.14    Overall it is considered that the proposal would represent subordinate and             sympathetic additions/alterations to the host property that would not harm the             appearance of the host property or that of the surrounding area, in accordance     with Brighton & Hove City Plan Part Policy CP12 and Brighton & Hove City Plan           Part Two Policies DM18 and DM21, and SPD12 guidance.

            Impact on Amenity:  


9.15    Policy DM20 of City Plan Part 2 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.


            It is noted that objections have been received relating to overshadowing and         impacts on daylight/sunlight. Whilst these objections are acknowledged, no        significant adverse impacts are expected as a result of the proposed       development that would justify a refusal of the application.


9.16    Amended plans have been received since submission of the application to            retain the flat roof form over the rear section of the existing garage to mitigate             harm in terms of overshadowing to no. 38. Although some impact is expected as        a result of the remaining pitched roof over the front of the garage, it is       acknowledged that the roof slopes away from the boundary shared with number             38 as well as from their side elevation and given the orientation of no. 36 to the west of no. 38. It is also important to note that a similar relationship exists between no. 38 and no.40 which was granted planning permission in 2020.    Therefore, although some harm is expected, the harm is not enough to warrant     a refusal at this stage.


9.17    It is noted that the eaves of the proposed flat roof would be of a similar height       than existing, therefore, the proposal would not increase in height nearest to the           boundary with no. 38 and the impact would be of a similar scale.


9.18    Furthermore, from assessment of the photos submitted with the application and   from the officer own site visit carried out, it is apparent that the neighbour's side       windows potentially affected are not the primary windows serving the property      as there is a significant amount of glazing on the rear elevation.


9.19    The extension would be set away from No. 34 Gorham Avenue and although       some impact is expected, the impact is mitigated considering the south-eastern gardens the properties benefit from.


9.20    The proposed extension would back onto the rear garden of 70 Dean Court           Road but would be a significant distance from the boundary and rear elevation           of this property and is not therefore considered excessively overbearing.


9.21    The new fenestration and openings created at the rear would not substantially      increase overlooking from that of the existing situation. The proposed extension       would provide no more of a view of the neighbouring properties than the existing            apertures, or a view from within the garden.  Therefore, the potential impact on        the privacy of the neighbours is not considered to be harmful.


9.22    The new side window would be 1350mm wide and would serve a bathroom. No   impact on privacy is, therefore, expected.


9.23    Overall, it is considered that, for the reasons set out above, whilst some harm to the neighbours has been identified, the identified harm is not to a magnitude to           warrant a refusal, and as such the proposal complies with DM20 of the Brighton           and Hove City Plan Part 2.


            Standard of Accommodation 

9.25    The proposed extension would enlarge the existing communal space for the             dwellinghouse, which would improve the overall floorspace and standard of             accommodation in accordance with policy DM1 of City Plan Part Two.



10.       EQUALITIES  


10.1    None identified





11.1    A condition is attached requiring the installation of a bee brick which will assist     improving the biodiversity on site.





12.1    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. 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.