Agenda item - Application BH2011/02845, 150 Ladies Mile Rd, Brighton

Demolition of garage and out building in garden to north side of existing bungalow and erection of new two storey detached dwelling.

(1)                   It was noted that this application had formed the subject of a site visit prior to the meeting.

(2)                   The Deputy Development Control Manager, Paul Vidler, drew Members attention to additional comments in support of the application in the Late List, and gave a presentation detailing the scheme by reference to plans and photographs. The application sought the division of the plot at no150 Ladies Miles Road to build an additional detached property. The building had been designed to echo other buildings further up the street, and it was highlighted that the first floor was set back one metre from the ground floor at the rear of the property to address neighbour concerns in relation to loss of amenity. The spaces between the proposed new building and the neighbouring properties would be 2 metres on either side, and this was similar to the plot configuration of the newer properties further up the street. The proposals would achieve code level 4 for sustainability; it was considered there would be adequate garden space on both the new property and the existing, and there was adequate provision of parking at the front of both properties. The application was recommended for approval for the reasons set out in the report.

Public Speakers and Questions

(3)                   Mr L. Rathbone, a local resident, spoke in objection to the application stating the recessed first floor at the rear of the property would not be sufficient to mitigate the loss of sunlight to his neighbouring property, and the use of his rear garden and patio would be compromised. It was felt the proposals were contrary to planning policy and constituted overdevelopment as the property had been turned sideways on to ensure it fitted the plot. There would also be other neighbours affected by the scheme; it was accepted that there been some compromise to the proposals, but it was considered that they did not go far enough to address concerns.

(4)                   Councillor Rufus asked if Mr Rathbone was opposed to development of the scheme in principle or simply the proposals that had been put forward. Mr Rathbone stated he had no objection to the development of the site, but that his objections related to the way development was proposed as part of this scheme.

(5)                   Councillor Pidgeon spoke in his capacity as the local Ward Councillor, and stated that he had received letters and phone calls from local residents expressing their concern in relation to the proposals. The proposed location of the building on the plot would create a significant loss of privacy for the residents at no152 Ladies Miles Road and affect amenity. The proposal was also considered too large for the plot, and it was felt it would look out of place on the street.

(6)                   Mr R Holness, the applicant, spoke in support of the application, and stated that although the main entrance door was on the side of the property the windows on this aspect would be obscured to prevent overlooking. The objections from residents had been considered and dealt with as part of the planning application process, and this was reflected by the Officer’s recommendation that the application be granted. The proposals would allow the applicant additional space to accommodate elderly parents, and ensure the family could provide assistance by being close by, but still ensured that the family each had their own independent living spaces.

(7)                   The Head of Development Control, Jeanette Walsh, highlighted that the Committee must consider the proposed scheme as set out in the report, and not give weight or consideration to any amended scheme.

(8)                   In response to a query from Councillor Hyde the Senior Lawyer explained that the personal circumstances were capable of being material planning considerations; however, they should be considered in the context of all the material planning considerations relating to any particular scheme. The Head of Development Control also noted that personal circumstances had not formed part of the submission or application.

(9)                   In response to queries from Councillor Cobb and Councillor Bowden it was confirmed that the application would lead to the creation of an additional property on a separate plot.

(10)               It was confirmed for Councillor Hyde that the distance between the existing bungalow and the proposed new property would be two metres.

Questions for Officers, Debate and Decision Making Process

(11)               Councillor Farrow stated that he accepted there was the necessity for infilling to provide additional housing in the city, and went on to ask how Officers interpreted whether a scheme was appropriate. The Deputy Development Control Manager explained that Officers considered the size of the plot, the impact of neighbouring properties, the street scene and other factors. Following further queries from Councillor Farrow it was explained much of the work undertaken by Officers in producing recommendations was subjective, and it was necessary to make a judgement on each application on its own merits.

(12)               In response to a query from Councillor Hawtree it was explained that a code level 4 for sustainability had been negotiated and was considered to be acceptable.

(13)               Councillor Simson asked a question about the windows on the north elevation of the property that would face no152. Officers explained that these were either stairs or toilets; they would all be obscured, and only could only be opened above eye level. Following a further question it was also explained that the rear balcony was recessed and cut out of the roof space.

(14)               Councillor Bowden asked questions in relation to the loss of amenity, and it was explained that it was not normal to conduct a sunlight study on a development of this size, but it was accepted there would be some reduction due to the alignment of the rear elevation of the building.

(15)               Councillor Hyde noted that the main room affected at no152 was the kitchen, and asked if it was considered a habitable room. It was confirmed that the affected window was secondary.

(16)               Councillor Farrow noted his concerns in relation the scheme; he accepted the need for infilling, but went on to state that he did not consider the proposals appropriate and would be voting against the Officer’s recommendation.

(17)               Councillor Cobb stated she agreed with Councillor Farrow, and highlighted her concerns in relation to the impact of the street scene, the reduction in the plot size and the impact on amenity. She stated that she would also be voting against the Officer recommendation.

(18)               Councillor Hyde highlighted her concerns in relation to the loss of sunlight and daylight; the provision of a two-storey building next to a bungalow, and the potential impact this could cause. Although she sympathised with the personal circumstances of the applicant she would be voting against the Officer recommendation.

(19)               Councillor Carol Theobald raised concerns in relation to size of the balcony, and felt that the proposal was too bulky and would be overbearing.

(20)               Councillor Hawtree stated his view that the scheme should be reconsidered.

(21)               Councillor Rufus noted that he did not share some of the concerns of other Members in relation to the proximity to neighbouring properties; but on balance he felt that the proposals were too big for the plot, and he would be voting against the Officer recommendation.

(22)               Councillor Bowden said that the proposal was a good solution to the applicant’s personal situation, but felt the application could be resubmitted with a better design. He would be voting against the Officer recommendation.

(23)               The Head of Development Control clarified that the impact on amenity of both neighbouring properties had been assessed.

(24)               A vote was taken and, of the 12 Members present, planning permission was refused on a vote of 9 to 3. Councillor Hyde proposed reasons that planning permission be refused, and this was seconded by Councillor Hawtree; a short recess was then held to allow the Chair, Councillor Hyde and Councillor Hawtree to agree the reasons for the refusal in full, in consultation with the Head of Development and the Senior Lawyer. A recorded vote was then taken and, of the 12 Members present, planning was refused on a vote of 9 to 3 for the reasons set out below.    

157.3    RESOLVED - That the Committee has taken into consideration the recommendation but resolves to REFUSE planning permission for the reason set out below.

The proposed developments by reason of its size, arrangement, scale and massing would have an adverse and overbearing impact on the properties at 150 and 152 Ladies Mile Road. This would cause an unacceptable loss of sunlight and daylight to those properties contrary to policies QD1, QD2 and QD27 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan 2005.

Note 1: A vote was taken and planning permission was refused on a vote of 9 to 3.

Note 2: Councillor Hyde proposed reasons for refusal of planning permission (set out above), these were seconded by Councillor Hawtree. A recorded vote was then taken. Councillors MacCafferty (Chair), Bowden, Cobb, Farrow, Hawtree, Hyde, Rufus, Summers and Carol Theobald voted that planning permission be refused. Councillors Carden, Hamilton and Simson voted that planning permission be granted. Therefore on a vote of 9 to 3 planning permission was refused.