Agenda item - BH2023/03224 - 14 Millcross Road, Portslade - Householder Planning Consent

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

Speakers

2.         Janet Morgan addressed the committee as a neighbouring resident and stated that they objected to the scheme as it added to the destruction of the area. The development overlooked the garden, and allowed no light to the washing line, making the house dark and damp leading to health conditions. The speaker was a music and light therapist and they had had to abandon the work. The speaker considered the structure 2 inches to high and 10 inches too long. Communications had been unclear, and the council owed a duty of care to the council taxpayers. Due to overlooking the speaker felt uncomfortable in the garden and would retreat to the kitchen. The slope of the site meant neighbours overlooked gardens. The tall building was vulnerable on this high, steep windy site. The committee were requested to refuse the application.

3.         The applicant sent the following speech which was read out by the Democratic Services officer: This planning application follows a Prior Approval application approved at Planning Committee in April 2022 for a single storey rear extension, extending beyond the house by 3.25m. The current planning application seeks to regularise consent as the rear extension now includes 2 lantern rooflights. The roof lanterns were fitted during construction due to unforeseen issues on site and are the only revised detail from the approved scheme. The loft conversion built was intended to be constructed under permitted development rights, however the decision was taken for the dummy pitch of the ground floor extension to be attached to the bottom of the rear dormer. Whilst the loft on this property could be converted and extended under permitted development rights, the connected extensions as a whole development require planning permission, and so the loft conversion has subsequently been included within this application. The scale and massing of the proposals are not considered unusual for a single storey extension and loft conversion to a semi-detached bungalow of this nature. The rear extension is of the same modest depth as the previous Prior Approval application and replaces a pre-existing conservatory which had a similar depth. It should also be noted that the depth of the extension is only 0.25m over permitted development rights. The addition of the raised lantern rooflights, given their positioning and glazed nature, do not result in the extension having any greater impact than the approved scheme. Prior to submission of the original Prior Approval application, the immediately adjoining neighbours were consulted with the proposals, and during design stages consideration was given to the impact that the extensions may have on neighbours in terms of overshadowing. This can be attested in the design of the modest proportions and depth of the rear extension, as well as the flat roof design. The extension has been set away from the shared boundary to the east by approximately 0.3m to ensure the existing boundary is not affected. Prior to the construction, the applicant instructed a Right for Light surveyor on the request of the adjoining neighbour, to ensure that the extension would not impact the internal light levels of the adjoining property under the requirements of the Right for Light Civil Law. The report concluded that if the proposed extension was completed, there would not be a substantial interference with the light to 120 Foredown Drive as a whole or any room within it. They also stated that the remaining light would be enough for comfortable use and enjoyment of the house according to the ordinary requirements of humankind. Aside from the 1 objection received by the Council, no concerns have been raised by any other neighbouring residents, and no complaints were received about the development during construction. Concerns have been raised by one neighbour that the bungalow is not for residential purposes. We would like to put on record that the applicant is the owner of the property, and this is their full-time residence. The applicant has moved to the city in retirement to be closer to her family. The extensions were part of a general refurbishment and modernisation of the layout of the property following purchase, to future proof the dwelling, and enable immediate family members and her grandchildren to be accommodated when they visit.

Answers to Committee Member Questions

4.         Councillor Cattell was informed by the neighbour that the rear garden was overshadowed by the development which blocks light and leads to overlooking. The Planning Manager confirmed that the loft was converted under permitted development and a planning application was required when the dormer was attached to the roof extension.

5.         Councillor Theobald was informed that the extension is subservient to the dwelling and below the roofline. The dormer is 1.3m high, 1.6m deep and 3.5m wide.

6.         Councillor Robinson was informed that the application was retrospective, but this is not relevant. The extension is new, the dormer was erected under permitted development rights, however, the two elements join and therefore the whole requires planning permission.

7.         Councillor Nann was informed that all the elements of the development combined resulted in the requirement for planning permission.

8.         Councillor Shanks was informed that the dormer was permitted development.

Debate

9.         Councillor Theobald considered the neighbour was suffering as a result of the development and they did not therefore support the application.

10.      Councillor Nann sympathised with the neighbour; however, they supported the application.

11.      Councillor Robinson noted the extension was agreed. They sympathised with the neighbour however, they supported the application.

Vote

12.      A vote was taken, and by 7 to 3 the committee agreed the recommendations.

13.      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.