Agenda item - BH2025/01832 - 4 Benett Drive, Hove - Householder Planning Consent

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

Speakers

2.   Colin Hawkins addressed the committee as a neighbour and stated that they lived at no.2 for the past 27 years. They object to the application as the first-floor terrace proposed will be overwhelming. The terrace will be a massive increase and lead to an invasion of privacy for the neighbour. The terrace will give a grandstand view of the neighbouring garden. The development will result in overlooking, loss of privacy and noise. A first-floor balcony has previously been refused. Planning needs to be consistent. The proposals are an extreme over development of the site, which has been objected to by the neighbours. Previous applications were considered an invasion of privacy.

Answers to Committee Members Questions

3.   Councillor Sheard was informed that the difference between this application and the 2014 application was the enlargement of the front elevation middle dormer, however, the rear roofscape is the same. The 2014 application had larger dormers to the rear and an additional single storey extension.

4.   Councillor Robinson was informed that the balconies proposed in the 2019 application were Juliet style. The single storey extension proposed in the application is 1m larger than the 2019 application, and 3.5m beyond the original building. It was noted that overlooking is subjective. The roof terrace has been reduced and considered acceptable with the addition of privacy screens. The privacy of the gardens near to the property are protected.

5.   Councillor Earthey was informed that the roof dormers are to be extended. The proposed balcony is to include 1.5m privacy screens, however, there will be some overlooking.

6.   Councillor Theobald was informed that the development is bigger than 2019 proposals and the screens can be looked over.

7.   Councillor Shanks was informed that the issues raised by the neighbour were looked at by the case officer on the site visit.

8.   Councillor Thomson was informed that the privacy screens would be 1.5m high. 1.8m screens is usually the highest.

Debate

9.   Councillor Sheard expressed concerns that the proposed balcony is not suitable for the area. The privacy screens make the development worse.

10. Councillor Theobald stated they did not like the proposed balcony as it was unfair on neighbouring properties. The councillor was against the application.

11. Councillor Winder considered the property a jumble of extensions. The councillor was against the application.

12. Councillor Robinson considered the property already a jumble and larger screens would be better.

13. Councillor Shanks was against the application.

14. Councillor Thomson was not happy with the application.

15. Councillor Earthey considered the proposals were an overdevelopment of the site and was against the application.

Vote

16. A vote was held and by 3 to 6 the committee did not agree with the officer recommendation. (Councillor Cattell had left the meeting and took no part in the discussions or decision-making process).

17. A motion to refuse the application was made by Councillor Sheard and seconded by Councillor Earthey on the grounds that the scheme was an overdevelopment and invasion for privacy with loss of neighbour’s amenities under policies CP12 and DM21.

18. A recorded vote was held and the following councillors voted for the motion to refuse: Sheard, Shanks, Earthey, Theobald, Winder and Thomson. The following councillors voted against the motion to refuse: Nann, Robinson and Parrot.

19. RESOLVED: That the committee refuse the application for the reasons set above, the wording to be agreed between the planning officers and the proposer and seconder.