Agenda item - BH2024/01962 - 63 Lyminster Avenue, Brighton - Full Planning

1.       The Case officer introduced the report to the committee.

Speakers

2.       Christopher Behan addressed the committee as an objecting resident and stated that the original proposals were amended. This application is new and has an overbearing impact. The adjoining neighbours north facing window will lose light. The drawings are inaccurate and designed to allow a ‘build what you like’ approach. The proposals do not pass the 450 rule, and the design is unbuildable. The decking proposed will extend 7m along the boundary between the neighbours. Some plans were submitted too late to be examined by the neighbour. The harm is acknowledged in the report. The scheme needs to be better. The committee should refuse the application.

3.       Ward Councillor McNair submitted a speech, read out by the Democratic Services Officer, as follows: The development will affect the neighbour. Planning Officers note some harm. This proposal will leave a lasting, oppressive impact on the neighbour’s home. The kitchen/diner will lose a fundamental sense of openness and a devastating amount of light. The extension will obliterate the vital light and outlook from the rear window, leaving a solid, oppressive wall, depriving the South Downs views. The neighbour commissioned a 3D scan which proves the drawings are fundamentally inaccurate. The proposals fails the 45-degree rule on both the horizontal and vertical axes. The report gives conflicting heights for the single-storey element – one section says it aligns with the first floor (which is around 3.3m from the neighbours ground level); another states it’s approximately 2.5m. The boundary is not clear on the plans and drawings are deliberately vague. It is possible that the eaves of the extension will overhang the boundary line, which would go against the Supplementary Planning Document. The extension, at 4 metres depth, is also greater than planning guidance which states it should not be greater than half the depth of the main house. The 1.8m privacy screen on the raised decking, extends 7 meters along the boundary. This will give a sense of being walled in. There will be serious overlooking into neighbour’s garden, and the properties below. Please refuse the proposal.

4.       Tanvir Bansal addressed the committee as the agent acting on behalf of the applicant and stated that the property owners love the area and they have spoken to the adjoining neighbour and agreed the proposals. The current property internal layout is not practical, and the house has been sold as there is not enough space. The applicant has worked with the council and made amendments when requested. The applicant wants to develop the home into one that works. The application is within policy boundaries and the committee are requested to approve the development.

Answers to Committee Member Questions

5.       Councillor Theobald was informed that the 2.5m height measurement is from the finished floor level of the property and the drawings are too scale, dimensions are therefore not needed. A sun/daylight assessment is not needed on this scale of development. The north facing loss of light is not deemed harmful. The 450 rule only failed on the horizontal not the vertical, but this rule is a tool to be used and is not the only consideration.

6.       Councillor Shanks was informed that the committee need to assess the scheme before them. The previous two storey scheme was revised to the current proposals.

7.       Councillor Loughran was informed that the drawings are to scale, and the height of the extension is 2.5m from finished floor level. If the construction exceeds this height, then enforcement action can potentially be taken. Dimensions are not shown as the drawings have a scale bar.

8.       Councillor Sheard was informed that the 450 rule may be found in an appendix to SPD12 derived from BRE guidance and that the committee needs to also consider what can be done under permitted development.

9.       Councillor Theobald was informed that the majority of the boundary hedge is to be maintained to act as a privacy screen. The committee needed to consider the application before them and not wait until the new owners of the property submit one. The applicant did not need to attend the meeting for the committee to make a decision and there was no reason to defer the application.

10.      Councillor Nann was informed that the sale of the house was not a planning consideration.

11.      Councillor Shanks was informed that the case officer has visited the site.

Debate

12.      Councillor Theobald considered the proposals would overshadow the neighbour and the decking was not good. The councillor did not support the application.

Vote

13.      A vote was taken, and by 4 to 6 the committee did not agree with the case officer’s recommendation.

14.      Councillor Theobald, seconded by Councillor Shanks proposed that the application should be refused for being overbearing and overshadowing the neighbour leading to a loss of amenity.

15.      A recorded vote was taken, and the following voted for the refusal: Councillors: Earthey, Loughran, Nann, Shanks, Theobald and Winder. The following Councillors voted against the refusal: Cattell, Parrott, Sheard and Thomson. Officers to draft reason for refusal and send to proposer (Councillor Theobald) and seconder (Councillor Shanks).