Agenda item - BH2024/01297 - 120 Holland Avenue, Hove - Full Planning

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

Speakers

2.    Lisa Heathfield, an objecting neighbour, submitted a speech which was read out by the Democratic Services officer: We’ve been supportive, kind and understanding for over 18 years. We were stunned when they built higher than granted and devastated when they told us that they’d do nothing about the resulting shadow. In November we spoke to our neighbours about the fact that they’d built too high. But they chose to ignore our pleas and keep building. In January, planning enforcement said that their extension was ‘clearly’ higher than it should be. Legal advice was sought, which concluded that they were indeed in breach of planning. The drawings are littered with inaccuracies – which surely follows that permission can’t be granted. They haven’t shown that the difference between the leading edge of their extension and ours is now 800mm. A simple bit of math’s also shows that the calculations are incorrect. 2.9, plus decking of 35 comes to 3.25, not 3.2. Add to this the fact that the extension is 296 high, then the overall height becomes 331. At over 10% above permitted development rights, it’s this extra height that has caused such a huge shadow over the main living area of our home for the majority of the year. We built our extension 20 years ago with fixed windows in the roof, specifically so that sunshine could flood in. Lack of sunshine increases depression and anxiety. The harm to our lives is enormous. There’s no question that this extension has not been carried out in accordance with the approved drawings. As such, planning simply cannot be granted.

3.    Ward Councillor O’Quinn addressed the committee and stated that they had become involved in this planning application when they were contacted by Lisa Heathfield, and a site visit was arranged to their property. The applicant has also contacted the councillor to put forward their point of view. On visiting no 122, the councillor could see what the issue was as there was a noticeable difference between the height of the infill extension at no 120 and the one at 122 Holland Road. The difference in height was causing considerable distress to the Heathfield family as it affected their main living and working area. It is acknowledged that there is an impact on the amount of light especially in the wintertime. However, it was put forward that the loss of light wasn’t a major issue by the applicants and also in the planning report. It is noted that the loss of light is not enough to turn down a planning application, but loss of light does affect people quite seriously and this is not always given the weight that it deserves. The councillor noted that in their objection, the applicants obviously realise the importance of light because they have included a light well in their roof. The councillor recognised that there was an issue between the two neighbours because of the discrepancy in heights between the two in-fills.

4.    Ian Coomber addressed the committee as the agent acting on behalf of the applicant stated that the development has been constructed in line with the city plan policy. Overshadowing can be an issue however, the report states that the impact on the neighbour was very little. A site visit has been carried out and it was considered there was little to no harm. The agent considered this was a neighbour dispute and there was no harm to the surrounding area. It was understood that the neighbour considered there was some overshadowing to the glazed roof, however, this was not significant.

5.    The case officer clarified that the applicant had sent revised sunlight/daylight report to the case officer with minor alterations to the plans. At the site visit it was found that the measurements of the build were the same as the plans.

Answers to Committee Member Questions

6.    Councillor Thomson was informed that it was acceptable to submit a retrospective planning application. The deterrent would be that planning permission may be refused. It is preferable that planning permission should be gained before the development is started. The councillor was also informed that the photos submitted by the neighbour were believed to be taken in June 2024.

7.    Councillor Shanks was informed that it was not a requisite requirement that the neighbouring extensions should be the same level. It was noted that there were two previous applications and the second could not be built. The committee were informed that they should only consider the application before them, not the previous applications. It was noted that the extension was 300mm over permitted development sizes.

8.    Councillor Cattell was informed that it was seen on the site visit that the neighbouring extension’s roof was corrugated glazing and there was some overshadowing. The rear doors to the neighbour’s extension were fully glazed.

9.    Councillor Sheard was informed that a cold roof was not insulated, and the warm roof was insulated.

10. Councillor Theobald was informed that the overshadowing lessened as the day progressed due to orientation of the house. The Planning Manager noted that only two panels of the extension’s roof were shown to be affected.

Debate

11. Councillor Cattell considered that light entered the neighbour’s extension from both the vertical and horizontal planes. The councillor expressed sympathy for the neighbour, however no law was being broken. The councillor supported the application.

12. Councillor Shanks stated that the committee were not able to resolve neighbour disputes. The councillor considered the applicant should have applied for planning permission before building. The councillor was against the application. The attending legal officer noted that a retrospective planning application was acceptable and was not a reason for refusal.

13. Councillor Nann noted the development was above permitted development height and if they voted against the application, it would be challenging to remove and disproportionate. The councillor supported the application.

14. Councillor Sheard considered the application a neighbour dispute which the committee could not resolve. There seems to be some shadows on the roof glazing panels and they understood the distress caused. The councillor supported the application.

15. Councillor Theobald considered the applicant to be taking a chance submitting a retrospective planning application. The councillor considered the loss of sunlight to be stressful and development should be lowered.

16. Councillor Galvin considered the correct plans should have been submitted and then the neighbour could have objected. The situation was now difficult as the extension had been built. The Planning Manager stated that the applicant cannot always survey the neighbour’s property to produce plans.

Vote

17. A vote was taken, and by 5 to 2, with 2 abstentions, the committee agreed the officer recommendations.

18. RESOLVED: That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report and resolves to GRANT planning permission subject to the Conditions and Informatives in the report.