Agenda item - BH2013/03658 - 17 Dean Court Road, Rottingdean, Brighton - Householder Planning Consent

Demolition of existing detached garage to rear and erection of detached double garage to side elevation incorporating revised driveway and installation of timber entrance gate. (Amended plans).

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE

Demolition of existing detached garage to rear and erection of detached double garage to side elevation incorporating revised driveway and installation of timber entrance gate. (Amended plans).

1)                      The Senior Team Planner, Kate Brocklebank, introduced the report and gave a presentation by reference to photographs, plans and elevational drawings. The application site related to a two-storey detached chalet bungalow property fronting onto Dean Court Road with access from Northfield Rise. Permission was sought for a detached double garage and the removal of the linked extension. It was noted that the mature hedge on the east elevation helped screen the proposed garage, but it could not be secured in perpetuity and could be removed at any time. It was felt that the application had not addressed the reasons for refusal in a similar application, and the garage would be in a prominent position and would harm the street scene.

Public Speaker(s) and Questions

2)                      Ms Christina Harrison-Flynn spoke in support of the application in her capacity as the applicant. She stated that she had lived in the property for over 10 years, and the neighbours had all supported the application. The application sought to provide additional security. It was noted that there was very little rear garden and the proposed site of the garage was currently difficult to use. The original 1950s conservatory had been replaced, and new flint walls and terraces had been installed at the front. It was argued that the proposal would be in-keeping with the street scene and provide additional security.

3)                      The applicant confirmed in response to Councillor Hyde that the garage would be stepped back further than the existing wall.

Questions for Officers

4)                      In response to Councillor Wells the Senior Team Planner confirmed that approximately 0.5 metres of the forward projection of the existing wall would be lost, and the height of the garage would be approximately 0.6 metres higher than the existing wall.

5)                      In response to Councillor Duncan it was explained that only a solid boundary treatment could be conditioned; in this instance additional planting could be secured through a landscaping condition dictating that the vegetation be replaced within five years if it died. It was noted that such a condition could be added if the Committee were minded to grant the application. This was then put to the vote and the Committee unanimously agreed to add this condition if the application were recommended for approval.

6)                      In response to Councillor Gilbey it was explained that the building line was usually a matter of judgment, but would take a point from the main bulk of the building, rather than the protruding conservatory in this case.

Debate and Decision Making Process

7)                      Councillor Cox noted that the householder had made great efforts to improve the property, and the neighbours had not expressed opposition to the scheme. The neighbours on Northfield Road would have an improved outlook, and it was highlighted there had been no comment from the Parish Council or the Local Ward Councillors; with all this in mind he would not support the Officer recommendation.

8)                      Councillor Wells stated that it been apparent from the site visit that the wall protruded at the front of the property, and if the garage were built it would not be visually damaging as it would follow the building line. He stated that he would not support the Officer recommendation.

9)                      Councillor Duncan stated that he noted the support from the neighbours, and he would not support the Officer recommendation.

10)                 Councillor Randall stated that the application seemed reasonable if the hedge was retained, and he would not support the Officer recommendation.

11)                 Councillor Hyde stated that it was her view there was already a protrusion at the front with the location of the conservatory; she agreed with the comments made by others and would not support the Officer recommendation.

12)                 A vote was taken and the Officer recommendation to refuse planning permission was unanimously not carried. Councillor Hyde proposed reasons for the approval and these were seconded by Councillor Cox. These reasons were then read to the Committee, and it was agreed that they reflected what had been put forward by Members. A recorded vote was then taken with the proposed reasons for refusal and Councillors: Mac Cafferty, Jones, Hyde, Carden, Cox, Randall, Duncan, Gilbey, Hamilton, Littman, Wealls and Wells voted that planning permission be granted.

166.4    RESOLVED - That the Committee has taken into account the Officer recommendation to refuse planning permission, but resolves to authorise the Head of Development Control to grant planning permission for the reason set out below, subject to the imposition of such conditions as she considers appropriate but which will include a landscaping condition which shall be approved in consultation with the Chair, Deputy Chair and Opposition Spokespersons.

Reasons for Approval:

              i.           The proposed development by reason of its scale and siting would not affect the street scene detrimentally and would therefore comply with policies QD2 and QD14 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan 2005 and SPD 12: Design Guide for Extensions and Alterations.