Agenda item - BH2024/02276 - 11 Bazehill Road, Rottingdean - Householder Planning Consent

1.    The case officer introduced the application to the committee.

Speakers

2.    Charly Robertson addressed the committee as a neighbouring resident and stated they objected to the scale and size of the rear patio, and they had no objections to the house even though there was overbearing impact from the extension. The 5m high was boundary wall was an issue. Some of the windows will be obscure glazed, but not all. It was requested that the patio only be on the east side of the property. The boundary fencing has been increased by 0.5m and it is noted that winds knock down high fences so it would need to be robust. It is noted that the property is not a family home, but a developer is proposing the works.

3.    Philip Atkins addressed the committee as the agent acting on behalf of the applicant and stated that the proposals to the rear elevation would improve the existing building, which is not owner occupied. The road is sloping, and the houses go down the hill so the impact is typical of the relationships. It should be noted that the parish council objections have been withdrawn, as have those of other neighbours. The level of the patio proposed has been lowered to the level of the garden and a privacy screen erected on the lower patio along with 2m evergreen planting on the boundary.

Answers to Committee Member Questions

4.    Councillor Theobald was informed that the patio was at garden level and the side windows were obscure glazed. The resident noted that the rear bedrooms were level with the patio as a result of ground levels dropping away.

5.    Councillor Robinson was informed by the agent that there was no breach of guidance, and it was noted that there are views of rear windows from the gardens of all terraced houses.

6.    Councillor Nann was informed that there was no oblique view of the neighbour’s house from the application property.

7.    Councillor Loughran was informed that by the agent that the privacy screening will consist of strengthened glass and etched.

Debate

8.    Councillor Robinson considered the proposals to be a vast improvement on what is existing. The councillor supported the application.

9.    Councillor Sheard supported the application as they could not see a planning reason to turn down the scheme. It was noted the privacy was already an issue in the road due to the stepped nature of the road.

10. Councillor Winder considered improvements outweighed any concerns. The screening and boundary planting are good. The councillor supported the application.

11. Councillor Theobald considered the existing house to be terrible and amended plans are better. The councillor was minded to grant planning permission.

12. Councillor Nann considered it would be wrong to vote against the application.

13. Councillor Loughran considered there was no reason to refuse and supported the application.

Vote

14. A vote was taken, and the committee agreed unanimously to grant planning permission. (Councillor Thomson had left the meeting and did not take part in the discussion or decision-making process).

15. 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.