Agenda item - BH2018/03767-11 Balsdean Road, Woodingdean, Brighton- Householder Planning Consent

Enlargement & alterations to existing dormers including installation of cedar cladding and replacement windows (retrospective)

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE

Ward Affected: Woodingdean

              Enlargement and alterations to existing dormers including installation of cedar cladding and replacement windows (retrospective)

Officer Presentation

(1)             The Principal Planning Officer, Stewart Glassar, introduced the application and gave a detailed presentation by reference to site plans photographs and elevational drawings detailing the scheme. He also explained the complexities of the planning history, in relation to earlier schemes, particularly in respect of roof alterations which had been dismissed at appeal and which had been subject to investigation by the enforcement team, which elements of the scheme for which planning approval was required and those elements which had been completed as permitted development.

(2)          It was noted that the application site related to a detached bungalow located on the north side of Balsdean Road. The street was set on a slope that rose from west to east and was comprised of bungalows with hipped tiled roofs and several side and front dormers clad in hanging tiles. The main considerations in determining the application related to the impact of the development on the character and appearance of the building itself, the wider street scene and the surrounding area and the amenities of adjacent occupiers. Acknowledging that a fall-back position was not a material consideration in this instance, taken together with the Inspector’s comments from the appeal decisions, which carried significant weight, the application was recommended for refusal as the current works were considered to cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the host building, wider street scene and surrounding area, and were contrary to policy QD14 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan. Notwithstanding that the existing dormer had been reduced and other minor alterations had been made the scheme was still considered overly dominant in the street scene.

              Public Speakers

(3)          Mr Parkhurst spoke on behalf of the applicants in support of their application, Mrs Ashley, one of the applicants, also spoke in support of their application. Mr Parkhurst referred to the fact that the application was supported by Councillor Simson one of the Local Ward Councillors and the high number of letters of support received from other local residents. Similar properties in the neighbouring vicinity had been extended in a similar way and currently the only issue which appeared to remain outstanding related to the cladding materials used which he did not consider were sufficient grounds for refusal. The applicants had lived in the property for 32 years and the proposed scheme would provide accommodation for an elderly relation.

(4)          Councillor Moonan referred to the planning history of the site and enquired why planning permission had not been sought in advance of works proceeding, especially in view of the Inspector’s previous decisions. It was explained that much of the work had been completed as permitted development, consideration would be given to changing the cladding materials.

              Questions of Officers

(5)          Councillor Miller asked for clarification regarding the works completed as permitted development and whether it was considered that use of alternative cladding material would be less dominant. Councillor O’Quinn also sought clarification on the same matter.

(6)          The Principal Planning Officer, Stewart Glassar, explained that refusal was recommended for two reasons and included consideration of the scale and design of the scheme rather that solely in relation to the cladding.

(7)          In answer to further questions by Councillors Littman, Moonan and O Quinn it was explained that if the existing cladding material was changed the application would be recommended for refusal by virtue of its size, bulk and impact on the neighbouring street scene.

(8)          Councillor Miller sought further clarification regarding permitted development and in respect of elements which could be retained.

              Debate and Decision Making Process

(9)          Councillor C Theobald stated that she supported the officer recommendation considering that the present scheme was far bulkier than extensions to other buildings nearby, it was not acceptable and something more modest was required. The existing development was too large. Councillor Miller concurred in that view

(10)       Councillor O’Quinn agreed that the application be refused. In her view the materials used were particularly incongruous in the street scene. Councillor Moonan was in agreement, considering that if amendments were made it was possible that the scheme could be acceptable, however, that was not currently the case. Councillors Hamilton and Littman agreed that further work was required and that the scheme was not acceptable a currently presented.

(11)       A vote was taken and the 7 members present voted unanimously that planning permission be refused.

145.1    RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report and resolves to REFUSE planning permission for the reasons also set out in the report.