Agenda item - BH2025/03063 - 77 Braemore Road, Hove - Householder Planning Consent

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

Speakers

2.    Rose Bungener addressed the committee as neighbour and stated that they were speaking for all the neighbours, and they considered the proposals should be in line with the City Plan. The proposed first floor extension will lead to a 50% loss of sunlight to the neighbour, which is not in line with policy DM20. The ground floor extension will be 50% more than others in the street, going beyond and over building lines. The additions are too wide, being 50% of the back elevation. If granted, it would be preferred if works were Monday to Friday only as neighbour has cerebral palsy. It is considered that the development breaches policies DM20 and DM21. The loft and side extensions were acceptable. The committee were requested to refuse the first-floor extension.

3.    Michael Benwell addressed the committee as the agent acting on behalf of the applicant and stated that the application is nearly identical to the previous July 2022 scheme and the first floor satisfies guidance. The additions extend no further to the rear than the existing and are not a wrap around. The single storey addition includes a flat roof to reduce impact. A neighbour at number 88 has had an identical roof extension approved. The dormer is modest and there are no other rooflights. Under policy CP12 the scheme is acceptable.

Answers to Committee Members Questions

4.    Councillor Nann was informed that the consistency was important and there are a variety of extensions in the area. The proposals are to the rear of the property only. The loss of light is comparable to the previously approved application. A sunlight assessment was not required. It was noted that summer and winter sunlight are different. It is not usual for this scale of development to restrict working hours, and environmental health will cover any issues arising. The legal representative confirmed that the conditions needed to be proportionate and reasonable.

5.    Councillor Cattell was informed that the objecting neighbour was to the north of the application site and the overshadowing and loss of light would be predominantly to the neighbour’s rear garden.

6.    Councillor Theobald was informed that the ground floor extension extends 3m from the rear of the property and a development somewhat similar to the proposal could be constructed under permitted development.

7.    Councillor Thomson was informed that there are a variety of extensions in the area, some more than 3m deep.

8.    Councillor Robinson was informed that the first-floor extension will match the existing gable at the rear.

9.    Councillor Shanks was informed that this application is different from the 2020 application in that the first-floor addition is different.

Debate

10. Councillor Nann considered the loss of sunlight for the neighbour was an issue, and they would like an agreement regarding the hours of work. The councillor was against the application.

11. Councillor Shanks stated that works would not take place on Sundays. The councillor supported the application.

12. Councillor Sheard considered that the whole year should be considered regarding sunlight, not just the shortest day of the year.

13. Councillor Robinson considered that the applicant should look at hours of working. The officer guidance was for approval. The councillor supported the application.

14. Councillor Theobald considered the effect on the rear garden of the neighbour to be not too be big, however, they were not happy. The councillor was against the application.

15. Councillor Cattell considered it was unreasonable to ask the applicant to have a sun/daylight assessment. There is not a lot of sun in the winter. The councillor supported the application.

16. Councillor Thomson considered the sunlight issues to be spurious, however, reducing the hours of working to Monday to Friday would be good.

Vote

17. A vote was held, and by 7 to 3, the committee agreed to grant planning permission.

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.