Agenda item - BH2023/00136 - 10 County Oak Avenue, Brighton - Householder Planning Consent

1.         The Planning Manager introduced the application to the committee.

Speakers

2.         Ward Councillor McNair sent a speech which was read out by the Democratic Services officer: The three reasons for objecting are: erected without planning permission; overdevelopment of site; overlooking of neighbours. This is not a small extension, and it is disappointing that no description for the use of this extension has been given. Immediate neighbours were inconvenienced and encroached upon by scaffolding, severe noise pollution, and loss of privacy. The extension is substantially larger than surrounding properties, and out of character. There is not enough parking. County Oak Avenue and Denton Drive do not have adequate parking for existing residents on a narrow and busy road, opposite a Primary School. The property encroaches on the privacy of neighbouring properties and lead to loss of natural light. A new window directly overlooks the bedroom of 112 Denton Drive. We are concerned about the build quality, and whether the foundations can support a new floor built on an existing extension. If approved a precedent will be set with residents feeling they can also builddevelopments without due process and consultation.

3.         Alana Gladwell addressed the committee as an objecting resident and stated that the development appears to be completed. The neighbour can now look straight into the neighbour’s bedrooms. The garden is overlooked leading to a loss of privacy. The right to light in the neighbour’s study has been affected. Warnings have been ignored and human rights violated. The committee were requested to refuse the application. It was also noted by the speaker that the drawings did not show the chimneys on the application property.

4.         The Planning Manager noted that the reasons for the development were not relevant, and the application can be started without planning permission out the owner’s risk. To convert to a House of Multiple Occupancy (HMO) or flats would require planning permission. Right to light is a private matter and not a material planning consideration.

Answers to Committee Member Questions

5.         Councillor Ebel was informed by the case officer that the development exceeds the  criteria for permitted development.

6.         Councillor Hugh-Jones was informed by the case officer that the loss of light to the neighbour was referred to in the report. There was some overshadowing however, this was acceptable as it was not all day.

7.         Councillor Theobald was informed that the applicant was advised to stop works, but they don’t have to adhere, and they can continue at own risk.

8.         Councillor Hills was informed that a right to light can be established over a long period of time, possible 20 years. This is a legal matter not a planning issue. The private right to light to the neighbour is not sufficient to refuse the application.

            Debate

9.         Councillor Theobald considered the scheme more finished than not following a site visit. The scheme is out of character and very close to the neighbour. The gardens are small. The developer should have stopped with three windows overlooking.

10.      Councillor Hills considered the development was insensitive to the neighbours and was concerned that the applicant had ignored advice to stop.

11.      Councillor Moonan noted the development had been built at owners’ risk and the local authority consult the neighbours. On balance the councillor supported the application, which was considered borderline.

12.      Councillor Ebel stated they were always disappointed with retrospective planning applications. They considered that if the impact on light was substantial it was an issue. The councillor was against the application.

13.      Councillor Hugh-Jones noted the applicant did not need to consult neighbours. The loss of light was deemed acceptable. Frosted glass would help with privacy issues. The councillor supported the application.

14.      Councillor Littman considered the application to be borderline. They noted only one window can conditioned to be obscure glazed and a retrospective planning application must be assessed as if it were proposed. On balance the councillor supported the application.

Vote

15.      A vote was taken, and by 4 to 2, with 1 abstention, the committee agreed to grant planning permission.

16.      RESOLVED: That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report and resolves to be MINDED TO GRANT planning permission subject to the receipt of no further representations raising additional material considerations within the re-consultation period ending 03.04.2023 and the Conditions and Informatives in the report.