Agenda item - BH2020/03127 - 74 Dean Court Road, Rottingdean, Brighton BN2 7DJ - Householder Planning Consent

1.    The Planning manager introduced the report.

Speakers

2.    Tim Furlam spoke to the committee as an objecting neighbour and stated that the development could set a precedent. The structure is next to the boundary with the neighbour and at six feet tall is out of scale. The structure is larger than an average single bedroom with stairs overlooking the neighbour’s garden. The neighbour objected for reasons of scale, loss of amenity, loss of privacy and noise. The objector asked the committee to refuse the application. If they were minded to approve, please condition the access stairs to be moved and the structure not to be used until the roof was completed.

Questions for speaker

3.    Councillor Fishleigh was informed that the request to move the stairs and not use till the roof was completed was to stop overlooking.

4.    Ward Councillor Mears spoke to the committee and stated that the application structure was to be a children’s playhouse and would be located at the end of the garden next to the boundary. The neighbour feels this is intrusive and hoped the stairs would be moved. The location is not good, and the committee were requested to refuse the application, and if not, please condition the stairs to be moved away from the boundary.

Questions for speaker

5.    Councillor Janio was informed that the structure was considered to be huge and intrusive.

6.    The Planning manager showed the photographs submitted by the neighbour to the committee.

7.    The applicant, Simon Beddoe, spoke to the committee and stated that they had tried to take on board the neighbour’s issues and erected extra screening. The structure would be used by small children only and there would be no loss of privacy or overlooking as the children won’t be able to see over the railings on the stairs. The person seen in the photographs is a gardener and would not be using the structure.

Questions for speaker

8.    Councillor Fishleigh was informed that the structure was located in the shaded area of the garden and formed part of the overall garden design. The stairs would not need to be moved as only young children would be using them and would not overlook the neighbour. The speaker stated they had made amendments already and felt this structure was not unreasonable.

9.    Councillor Childs was informed that the cost of moving the stairs would be considerable.

10.Councillor Miller was informed that the neighbours had discussions before erecting the structure and the applicant considered they had reached an agreement. The speaker was not sure if the stairs had been discussed before construction.

11.The case officer informed the committee that a new planning application would be needed to move the stairs. This was confirmed by the Senior Solicitor.

Questions for officers

12.Councillor Miller was informed that the structure measured 3m on the elevation facing the National Park to the rear of the site and 3.5m in total.

13.Councillor Fishleigh was informed that no site visits have taken place during the COVID-19 lockdown.

14.Councillor Janio was informed that the structure required planning permission as it was not classed as permitted development. It was not considered that the structure would set a precedent.

Debate

15.Councillor Childs did not consider there would be any damage to the neighbour and supported the application.

16.Councillor Theobald considered the building to be enormous and that children would look over the railings to next door’s garden and this was not fair on the neighbour. The councillor considered the development too much.

17.Councillor Miller noted the structure was next to the boundary and 3.5m high. The councillor asked for compromise and proposed a motion to condition that the roof be completed before use. The motion was seconded by Councillor Childs.

18.Councillor Ebel noted that the applicant had made changes for the neighbour and supported the application.

19.Councillor Fishleigh stated they were against the application.

20.Councillor Janio supported the application.

21.Councillor Shanks supported the application.

22.A vote was taken regarding the inclusion of a new condition to ensure roof was completed before use commenced. The committee voted 6 to 3 that a new condition be added. The Planning manager to agree the wording. (Councillor Yates had left the meeting and did not take part in the discussions or decision making process).

23.A vote was taken, and the committee voted 7 to 2 to grant planning permission as amended.

24.RESOLVED: That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report and resolves to GRANT planning permission subject to the Conditions and Informatives in the report and to include a further condition: Prior to the development hereby approved next coming into use, the roof shown on the approved plans shall have been installed and retained thereafter.

Reason: To reduce opportunities for overlooking and thereby protect neighbouring amenity by ensuring the playhouse use is limited to people of small stature.