Agenda item - BH2011/03705 23 Lowther Road

Erection of a single storey side and rear extension.

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

(2)               The Area Planning Manager (East), Claire Burnett, drew Members to the Late List, and gave a presentation detailing the scheme by reference to plans, elevational drawings and photographs. The property was a mid-terrace, and the two rooms on the ground floor were higher than the kitchen to the rear; the road was also on a gradient and nos 21 & 23 were at a lower level than no 25. The application sought permission for a side infill extension to wrap around and create an enlarged kitchen area which would fill in the side recess; an amendment during the course of the application now proposed that the extension be set away from the retained boundary with no 25 by 100mm. The roof would be pitched with ridges, and at the rear there would be 4 fully glazed sliding doors. It was noted that a similar application had been upheld at appeal locally as the inspector had concluded it was modest in scale and would have minimal impact on the neighbouring properties. Officer’s felt there would be no significant loss of privacy to either neighbouring property. The application was recommended for approval.

Public Speakers

(3)               Mr A Goldfinch, a local resident, spoke in objection to the application, and stated that the drawings on the Council’s website had not demonstrated the full impact of the extension, and local residents had undertaken their own research to better understand this; there would a loss of light to the neighbouring property at no 25.

(4)               Councillor Hawtree asked a question in relation to access for maintenance works, and it was explained that if granted the owners of no 23 would need access through no 25 for such works.

(5)               Mr B Haworth, the agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application and stated that the proposed extension was at ground floor level, and impacted less on no 25 due the difference in ground floor levels, and the eaves of the proposed extension would only be marginally higher than the existing fence. In relation to the loss of daylight it was highlighted that the proposed scheme was below the 45 degree line set out in national guidance.

(6)               The Head of Development Control and the Senior Lawyer highlighted that issues in relation to party walls and private maintenance arrangements were not material planning considerations, and the Committee could give them no weight in its decision.

(7)               In response to a query from Councillor Davey it was explained that the eaves of the proposed extension would sit at approximately sill level of the windows at no 25.

(8)               Councillor Cobb noted her concern in relation to the loss of light and building up to the boundary, and stated that she would be voting against the Officer’s recommendation.

(9)               Councillor Hyde noted her objections to the application and highlighted her concern in relation to the protection of amenity. She and stated that the development was un-neighbourly and contravened policies QD14 & QD27. Councillor Hawtree agreed with Councillor Hyde’s comments, and stated that the original Victorian design of these terraces was well thought out. Councillor Carol Theobald also noted her objection to the application, and agreement with the comments already made.

(10)          A vote was taken and of the eleven Members present planning permission was refused on a vote of 7 to 4. Councillor Hyde proposed reasons that planning permission be refused and these were seconded by Councillor Hawtree; a short recess was then held to allow the Chair, Councillor Hyde and Councillor Hawtree to agree the reasons for refusal in full in consultation with the Head of Development Control and the Senior Lawyer. A recorded vote was then taken. Councillors Carden, Davey, Hamilton and Wells voted that planning permission be granted. Councillors Hyde, Cobb, Farrow, Hawtree, Summers, Carol Theobald and MacCafferty voted that planning permission be refused. Therefore on a vote of 7 to 4 planning permission was refused.

169.6    RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration the recommendation but resolves to REFUSE planning permission for the reasons set out below.

1.     The proposed development by reason of its close proximity to the kitchen window of number 25 Lowther Road results in an increased sense of enclosure and reduction in outlook and would therefore have an unacceptably adverse impact on the amenity of the occupiers of 25 Lowther Road contrary to policies QD14 and QD27 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan 2005

2.     The proposed development by reason of its orientation by not allowing sufficient space between numbers 23 and number  25 Lowther Road has a detrimental visual impact on the character of the terrace contrary to policy QD14 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan 2005.

Note: Councillor Bowden was not present during the consideration or the vote on this application.