Agenda item - Application BH2011/03629, 21 Dyke Rd Ave, Hove

Erection of porch extension of front, single storey side and rear extension and balcony area above existing rear conservatory.

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

(2)                   The Area Planning Manager (West), Nicola Hurley, gave a presentation detailing the scheme by reference to plans, photographs and elevational drawings. Planning permission was sought for a single side and rear extension to replace the existing garage with a workshop; the existing garage already adjoined the boundary of the property. The scheme also included the installation of a balcony at the rear of the property which would be conditioned to include screening to reduce the impact of overlooking, and the balcony would be over 5.5 metres away from boundary. The application was recommended for approval for the reasons set out in the report.

Public Speakers and Questions

(3)                   Mrs Claire Grimes, a local resident, spoke in objection to the application and stated that she did want the proposed extension to come up the boundary fence she shared with the applicant’s property; instead she felt it should be 1 metre away. There would be loss of light to the southern facing windows of her property, and there was concern that the footings of the proposal could cause damage the piping to the swimming pool at her property.

(4)                   In response to a query from Councillor Cobb it was confirmed that there was a wooden shed on Mrs Grimes property that adjoined the boundary of her property, but this had been in situ for many years.

(5)                   Councillor Jayne Bennett spoke in her capacity as local Ward Councillor, and stated that she objected to building up to the boundary as the property had a large plot and it was considered un-neighbourly. She also noted concern for the potential loss of a beech tree, and felt that the balcony would create a loss of privacy for neighbours.

(6)                   In response to a query from Councillor Hawtree Councillor Bennett stated that effort should be made to preserve trees where possible, and the long term impact of the building works on the tree would not be known.

(7)                   Councillor Bowden stated that the screening on the balcony would prevent overlooking, and in response Councillor Bennett said this would depend on the view. Councillor Bowden reiterated his view that the proposed screening would be sufficient.

(8)                   Mr L. Cadell-Smith, the applicant, spoke in support of the application, and stated that the proposed extension would only be 0.5 metres higher than the existing fence, and the balcony would be screened and planted to prevent overlooking. It was confirmed that the beech tree was already in a poor state, and this had been confirmed by the Council, and he felt it was a reasonable relationship for both properties to build up to the boundary,

(9)                   The Head of Development Control confirmed that the Party Wall Act was separate to planning policy, and would have to be considered through a separate process.

Questions for Officers, Debate and Decision Making Process

(10)               In response to a query from Councillor Simson it was explained that the garage currently had a pitched roof, and the proposed extension would also have the same.

(11)               Councillor Rufus stated that it was important to seriously consider the potential impact of amenity on neighbours; furthermore, he did not feel that the proposals would have an adverse impact on the design of the building, but he stated that the increase in height of 0.5 metres could still be of great significance to neighbours.

(12)               Councillor Cobb said that she did not agree with building up to the boundary, and would be voting against the Officer recommendation.

(13)               The Head of Development control highlighted that gaps and spaces were material planning considerations, but the Council did not currently have a policy on this; however, the Council was currently consulting on its draft SPD  on householder extensions which, contained information on boundaries.

(14)               Councillor Carol Theobald noted her objection to building up to the boundary, and stated she was not in favour of the application.

(15)               Councillor Hawtree noted the ‘random’ nature of the existing building.

(16)               Councillor Farrow noted his concern that the Council did not have a policy in relation to building up to boundary walls, and stated that this made it more difficult for him to make a firm judgement on the application.

(17)               Councillor Bowden noted that was already an existing building on the boundary, and felt the proposals would be an improvement as the boundary fence was in need of repair.

(18)               Councillor Rufus explained that he was not concerned about building up the boundary, but rather the increased proximity of residents. Due to the proposed lengthening of the extension at the side he would be voting against the Officer recommendation.

(19)               Councillor Simson noted that as the garage was already in situ, and came up to the boundary wall, and she would be voting with the Officer recommendation.

(20)               A vote was taken and the 12 Members of the Committee present voted that planning permission be granted on a vote of 6 to 2 with 4 abstentions.

157.4    RESOLVED - That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation and the policies and guidance set out in the report and resolves to GRANT planning permission subject to the Conditions and Informatives set out in the report.