Agenda item - BH2012/00801 - 128 Beaconsfield Villas

Replacement of raised timber decking to rear. (Retrospective)

Recommendation – REFUSE

K         BH2012/00801, 128 Beaconsfield Villas, Brighton

(1)       Replacement of raised timber decking to rear (retrospective)

(2)       The Area Planning Manager (East), Claire Burnett gave a presentation by reference to drawings and photographs of the structure and views from it across and in relation to the gardens and windows of neighbouring properties. Although the applicant had indicated that the current structure replaced an earlier one in exact detail and dimensions evidence to that effect had not been forthcoming. It was considered that this rear terrace, due to its elevated height and its location near to the northern boundary of the site with no. 130 Beaconsfield Villas, represented an overbearing addition and un-neighbourly development for the residents of this neighbouring property by reason of increased overlooking, loss of privacy and disturbance at an elevated position. The development is therefore of detriment to the amenities of this neighbouring property. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies QD14 and QD27 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan. The development also represented an overbearing addition for the residents of southern and eastern neighbouring properties by reason of an increased sense of overlooking and loss of privacy. The proposed screening to the north of the terrace (as shown on the plans rather than as installed on site) would have an adverse impact upon the amenities of the occupiers of the upper level of 130 Beaconsfield Villas with regards to loss of light/sunlight.

(3)       The site was subject to an Enforcement Investigation as a result of the Council receiving a complaint following the construction of this raised terrace area. The applicant has stated that the terrace was a replacement of a former terrace area which provided access from the door within the rear elevation of the projecting wing of the property to the lower garden area. However the applicant has been unable to provide evidence of what the original structure had looked like.

(4)       Following withdrawal of an earlier application the applicant has altered the existing terrace area. The main differences to the structure seen during the Case Officers site visit in respect of application BH2011/03470 and the development with the current application were the reduction in width of the area from approximately 3.8m to 3.3m and the planting of vegetation along the northern edge of the terrace. However in view of the negative impact on neighbouring properties, refusal was recommended for the reasons set out.

            Public Speakers and Questions

(5)       Mr MacColl the applicant spoke in support of his application. He stated that that he refuted the position as set out in the report stating that  when had had purchased the property 10 years previously this wooden structure had been dilapidated and in a poor stated of repair. The structure had been beyond repair and had therefore been replaced. The gardens of properties in Havelock Road which lay to the rear of his property occupied an elevated position and therefore overlooked properties in Beaconsfield Villas including his own. Properties and gardens in the locality were configured in such a way that there was a degree of oblique mutual overlooking.

            Questions of Officers, Debate and Decision Making

(6)       Councillor Hyde sought further information from the applicant regarding the degree of purported overlooking.

(7)       Councillor Randall enquired whether the earlier structure had been the same height as currently and whether there had always been a door from the main house onto the decked area. The applicant confirmed that as stairs were not proposed to the garden this would reduce the use of the structure to a terrace, rather than as an access to the garden and not compromise the amenity of the neighbouring property. It was confirmed in answer to further questions that based on information confirmed by neighbours the previous structure had been in place for at least 18 years.

(8)       Councillor Mrs Theobald enquired why the earlier application had been withdrawn and the applicant explained that this had been in order to seek to overcome the objections raised by his neighbours.

(9)       Councillor Hawtree proposed that determination of the application be deferred pending a site visit, this was seconded by the Chair, Councillor MacCafferty. A vote was taken and it was agreed on a vote of 9 to 2 with 1 abstention that a site visit would take place.

187.11 RESOLVED – That consideration of the above application be deferred pending a site visit.