Agenda item - BH2026/00158 - 8 Windmill Drive, Brighton - Householder Planning Consent

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

Answers to Committee Member Questions

2.    Councillor Theobald was informed that the gardens were currently being landscaped.

3.    Councillor Earthey was informed that the rear elevation of the nearest neighbours to the south were 40m from the application property and that a condition was proposed whereby the rear terrace would be required to have screening to the sides to protect neighbouring amenity.

4.    Councillor Sheard was informed that the rear garden was to the south of the property, and there were therefore no significant issues relating to overshadowing or loss of light.

5.    Councillor Pickett was informed that the existing property has a terrace to the rear, and the proposals include new terracing to the rear and a new upper floor, which will be some distance from the neighbours.

6.    Councillor Thomson was informed that the balcony screening would be to stop sideways views, leaving oblique views only.

Debate

7.    Councillor Cattell considered as there was a two-storey house next door, overlooking already existed. The councillor did not consider that neighbours would purposefully look at neighbouring gardens. It was noted that there was a large dormer on another property nearby. The councillor supported the application.

8.    Councillor Pickett considered the design to be modest compared to other properties in the road. The topography of the site means the property will be higher than others and there will be some overlooking. The councillor supported the application.

9.    Councillor Shanks supported the application.

10. Councillor Sheard noted the area was hilly, therefore neighbours can see into gardens and was not a matter for concern. It was considered there was no overshadowing. The councillor supported the application.

11. Councillor Theobald considered the trees would have been good to keep and if standing the owners could see over the balcony screening. The councillor considered a precedent would be set by the application. A site visit would have helped the committee Members understand the situation were privacy is an issue. The balcony is quite big. The councillor was against the application.

12. Councillor Parrott considered the proposals to be a significant upgrade for the property and there was a need for family homes.

13. Councillor Robinson considered the design to be sensible. The councillor supported the application.

14. Councillor Thomson noted the topography of the city was hilly. The councillor supported the application.

Vote

15. A vote was held, and by 9 to 1, the committee agreed to grant planning permission.

16. 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.