Agenda item - BH2023/02398 - 53 Ainsworth Avenue, Brighton - Householder Planning Consent

1.    The Planning Manager introduced the application to the committee. The case officer informed the committee that one further representation had been received which covered matters already raised in the report plus smells and pollution.

Speakers

2.    Susan Stanners addressed the committee as an objecting resident and stated that they were not against extending the property, however the proposals overshadow neighbours, and the sunlight/daylight report is not correct. The shadows formed by the proposals will fall across the whole of the neighbouring garden of 51. There is only a triangle of shadow at the moment across the garden at the moment. The 1.8m screen proposed will also affect the shadowing. The proposals will dominate and if granted will directly impact the amenities of the neighbour. The committee were requested to refuse the application.

3.    Sue Bradby addressed the committee as an objecting resident and stated that the proposals would overshadow and overlook neighbours. The council website states there should be no overlooking, however the proposed windows will overlook neighbours from the rear elevation. There will be a loss of privacy resulting from the proposals.

4.    Ward Councillor Fishleigh addressed the committee and stated that they currently considered Ovingdean a building site and they did not consider it acceptable to lose another smaller dwelling. The councillor noted that a Neighbourhood Plan was on the way. The councillor agreed with the residents who had spoken and considered the proposals to lead to loss of light, privacy and to be overlooked. The daylight/sunlight report appeared to be wrong. The committee were requested to refuse the application.

5.    Henry Wagstaff addressed the committee as the agent acting on behalf of the applicant and stated that the Council had previously refused a similar scheme on the basis of design and impact on neighbours, and this was upheld at appeal with the inspector agreeing that the proposals would have a negative impact on neighbours at 51 but that the design was acceptable. The development is now set back from the boundary and the sunlight/daylight report states a there would be minimal loss of light to neighbours. The loss of outlook has been reduced and overall, the development complies with policy. The committee were requested to grant planning permission.

Answers to Committee Member Questions

6.    Councillor Shanks was informed by the case officer that the first floor would be set back from the boundary by 2m. This was an amendment from the previous 1m.

7.    Councillor Earthey was informed by the case officer that the application differed from the previous application by the separation from the boundary and the reduction in the front terrace.

8.    Councillor Robinson was informed by the case officer that the report assessing the impact on sunlight/daylight had been reviewed by officers as well as the applicant. They had visited the site and did not consider there was significant loss of light.

9.    Councillor Cattell was informed by the case officer that the British Research Establishment (BRE) standard guidance had been used to assess the proposals.

10. Councillor Nann was informed that the standard methodology had been used and the proposals were satisfactory under the guidance. Ward Councillor Fishleigh confirmed that they considered the methodology to be flawed as the site was sloping and no site visit had been made to 51. The agent stated the sunlight/daylight report had been prepared by specialist and was based on BRE guidance and took into account the topography of the sites.

Debate

11. Councillor Earthey considered the bulk of the development to be an issue and the proposals were for a new house, not an extension. The councillor considered the proposals be an overdevelopment of the site. The councillor was against the application.

12. Councillor Theobald considered the design to very different from other properties and not much different from the previous refused application. They considered the proposals to be an overdevelopment of the site and out of keeping with the area. The councillor was against the application.

13. Councillor Cattell noted that other properties were of a modern design and there were many different styles of dwellings in the area. They considered that planning was not about stopping development. They did not consider the development to be out context in this area where there are lots of different types. There are no side elevation windows and vistas will only be from the front and rear of the proposed dwelling.

14. The Planning Manager noted that the Planning Inspector had not raised any issues with the design of the development.

Vote

15. A vote was taken, and by 5 to 3 the committee voted to grant planning permission. (Councillor Sheard took no part in the discussions or decision-making process).

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 GRANT planning permission subject to the Conditions and Informatives in the report.