Agenda item - BH2024/00077 - West House, 34B Preston Park Avenue, Brighton - Full Planning

1.         The Planning Manager introduced the application to the committee.

Speakers

2.         Ward Councillor Pickett stated that they considered the development to be reasonable with solar panels etc and contiguous with the existing building, however, there will be a harmful loss of amenity and be overbearing for the neighbours on this heavily developed plot. The gardens have been subdivided into two dwellings and any more massing would be too close to neighbours. It was noted that the Heritage team considered there was no impact on the street, however, this is not the case. There are two parking bays at the front of the building which are involved in a legal tangle regarding ownership. The councillor requested the committee to wait for more information on the impact of the development on parking.

3.         Rory Aitkenhead addressed the committee as the agent and stated that the parking issues for 35B and 34B were unrelated to the development. Numbers 34 and 36 were to the front of the plot and therefore not relevant to the development. The application property is 10m away from other buildings. This application reflects the changes requested by the planning officers from the first application to extend the property and is smaller. The footprint of the dwelling stays the same. The committee were asked to grant planning permission as there was no reason to refuse.

Answers to Committee Member Questions

4.         Councillor Thomson was informed by the agent that the distance between buildings remained unchanged from the existing. The case officer stated that the distance between buildings was considered on a case-by-case basis, and the frontages are not relevant. It was noted that there no new windows in the proposals.

5.         Councillor Nann was informed that the Heritage Team considered there was no harm to conservation area as there was no view of it from the street.

6.         Councillor Robinson was informed that there was considered to be no harm to numbers 34 and 34B as there were no windows proposed.

7.         Councillor Hill was informed that there was a statutory duty to look at the possible harm to the conservation area and here there was considered to be no harm. They were advised that the Council was taking a more relaxed approach to development in the conservation area where it was not visible from the street following a number of appeal decisions.

8.         Councillor Theobald was informed that there was no height alteration and this scheme had been reduced from the previous application to extend and this was to reduce the visual impact.

9.         Councillor Loughran was informed that the development was small.

Debate

10.      Councillor Thomson noted there were no windows proposed and the extension was small. The councillor supported the application.

11.      Councillor Hill considered the design to be good as were the proposed UVPC panels. The councillor did not consider the development to have a significant impact and were the committee to refuse the application it would be won at appeal.

12.      Councillor Loughran expressed concerns that the design was not good enough, the development would be overbearing, overlook neighbours, would not be high quality design and would be contrary to policies DM18 and DM20. Harm would be caused by the close proximity to the neighbours and the lack of space around buildings. The councillor did not support the application.

Vote

13.      A vote was taken, and by 5 to 5, with the casting vote given by the chair, the committee did not support the recommendation to grant planning permission.

14.      A motion to refuse the application was proposed by Councillor Loughran and seconded by Councillor Nann as the application was contrary to policies DM18 and DM20.

15.      A recorded vote was taken and Councillors Winder, Nann, Earthey, Theobald, Loughran voted for the refusal. Councillors Robinson, Allen, Thomson, Sheard and Hill voted against the motion to refuse the application. The chair had the casting vote and voted for the motion to refuse the application.

16.      RESOVLED: The committee has taken into consideration and does not agree the reasons for the application to be granted. The application is refused. The final decision wording is to be agreed with the proposer and seconder.