Agenda item - BH2019/02871, 21 Tumulus Road, Saltdean, Brighton - Full Planning

skip navigation and tools

Agenda item

BH2019/02871, 21 Tumulus Road, Saltdean, Brighton - Full Planning


1.          It was noted that this application had formed the subject of a site visit prior to the meeting.


2.          Wayne Nee (Principal Planning Officer) introduced the application and gave a detailed presentation by reference to site location plans, elevational drawings and photographs.




3.          Professor Billingham spoke in objection to the application. Until last year only sheds and greenhouses were found in the rear gardens of the area. The neighbours have been informed that the building is a summerhouse. The building is huge with a toilet and washing facilities. It is believed that the applicant will live in the building. Neighbours are concerned that sunlight will be reduced by the building and as the land slopes the building dominates other properties that it faces. It is considered that the landscaped garden now has an over bearing impact on neighbouring gardens. Numerous complaints have been submitted by the neighbours relating to overshadowing and overbearing impact, and yet work continues. The neighbours wish the committee to refuse this anti-social building.


Questions for Speaker


4.          Councillor Carol Theobald was informed that the structure is level with the neighbouring property’s bedroom windows.


5.          Councillor Sue Shanks was informed that the neighbours had not been approached by the applicant before commencing the structure.


6.          Councillor Mary Mears spoke as Ward Councillor in objection to the building. It was considered that this structure was not a summerhouse and is more like a bungalow. The structure has brought much unhappiness for neighbours and raised many concerns. It is considered that the structure has a visually harmful effect on neighbours and surrounding area. The building raises concerns regarding impact. As the structure is partially built it can be seen that the roof pitch is very high. If permission were to be granted, please condition that no dormer windows be allowed without planning permission. The Councillor concluded by stating that they have many concerns with the building.


Questions for Speaker – None.


7.          Tom Hall spoke as the applicant. The Summerhouse is to be used as a tranquil space for study and to share with the children in the summer. The garden was not well planned and he wanted to create some space to bring everything together. The outbuilding is within permitted development size. The summerhouse will offer some privacy from the neighbours and will also be used for storage whilst renovations to the house are taking place. In order to placate the neighbours, the roofing material has been altered to reduce the visual impact. It is noted that the neighbours at No.17 are fine with the building.


Questions for Speaker


8.          Councillor Nick Childs was informed that the rear garden was accessed via a side door from the kitchen.


9.          Councillor Joe Miller was informed that the applicant had talked to neighbours and visited the garden to the north once the roof was erected. It was noted that the roof was the same level as the garden hedge and did not block out any views. A slight impact was recognised on the property to the north.


10.      Councillor Bridget Fishleigh was informed that the pitch of roof reflected the need to store items from the house whilst renovations took place.


11.      Councillor Leo Littman was informed that the position of the building close to the neighbour’s boundaries was an error by the applicant.


12.      Councillor Nick Childs was informed that the building would be used for study purposes.


Officers Clarification


13.      The building does not fall under permitted development (PD). To be considered under PD the structure should be more than 2 metres from the site boundaries.


Questions for Officer


14.      Councillor Daniel Yates was informed that the PD rights would be removed from the summerhouse, if planning permission was granted, and any dormer windows or further storeys would therefore require the benefit of planning permission. It was noted that incidental use could include a person sleeping in the summerhouse. No shower or bathroom facilities are shown in the application.


15.      Councillor Bridget Fishleigh was informed that overshadowing, overlooking, noise and disturbance, loss of trees, loss of outlook, layout and density of buildings have all been taken into consideration. The loss of view is not a material consideration, the loss of outlook is recognised, and the structure is not considered, at the bottom of the garden, to be prominent. The impact of the structure is considered acceptable.


16.      Councillor Carol Theobald was informed that photographs had been taken on the site visit and these were shown to the committee via the projector.




17.      Councillor Joe Miller was empathetic to the applicant and the neighbours. It was considered that a flat roof would have had less impact on the neighbours as the loss of outlook was not good. Councillor Miller did not support the application.


18.      Councillor Tony Janio felt that the applicant had made an error and approval should be granted and the committee should move on with other business.


19.      Councillor Carol Theobald felt the building makes a difference to the neighbour’s amenities and was ugly. Councillor Theobald did not support the application.


20.      Following requests by the Chair to not talk over other Members of the Committee and the Chair, the Chair requested that Councillor Tony Janio leave the meeting under Brighton and Hove City Council Constitution Rule 25.1:


Misbehaviour by a Member. If the person presiding at any meeting of the Council is of the opinion that a Member has misconducted or is misconducting by persistently disregarding the ruling of the Chair, or by behaving irregularly, improperly or offensively, or by wilfully obstructing the business of the Council, he/she may notify the meeting of that opinion, and may take any of the following courses, either separately or in sequence:

a)         He/she may direct the Member to refrain from speaking during all, or part of the remainder of the meeting;

b)         He/she may direct the Member to withdraw from all, or part of the remainder of the meeting;

c)          He/she may order the Member to be removed from the meeting;

d)         He/she may adjourn the meeting for 15 minutes or such period as shall seem expedient to him/her.


21.      Councillor Bridget Fishleigh felt that a flat roof should be required under condition. It was noted that this was not possible.


22.      Councillor Leo Littman felt the structure was too close to the site boundaries and would not support the application.


23.      Councillor Daniel Yates felt sorry for the applicant and noted that the structure was too close to the boundary and therefore required the benefit of planning permission. The concerns of the neighbours are noted. A condition should be added to stop sleeping in the structure overnight. A flat roof may be better. The application should be refused, and a lesser building brought back to committee.


24.      Councillor Sue Shanks agreed with Councillor Yates and felt the impact was too great. Councillor Shanks did not support the application.


25.      Councillor Phelim Mac Cafferty noted the officer recommendation to grant planning permission and the reasons given in the report.


26.      Councillor Nick Childs noted that the application was far from ideal, the material loss of privacy a concern. Councillor Childs supported the application.


27.      Councillor Tracey Hill supported the officer recommendation to grant planning permission.


28.      Vote: The Committee voted on the motion proposed by Councillor Yates and seconded by Councillor Theobald, to add a condition, should the application be granted planning permission, to enforce no sleeping in the structure overnight. The Committee agreed by a majority.


29.      Vote: The Committee voted by a majority against the officer recommendation to grant planning permission.


30.      Vote: Councillor Fishleigh proposed that the application be refused on the grounds of loss of outlook and overbearing impact on the neighbour at 20 Wivelsfield Road, and loss of privacy to no.19 Wivelsfield Road.


31.      A Recorded vote was held. The Councillors voted as follows:
Hill = Against, Littman = For, Theobald = For, Childs = Against, Fishleigh = For, Mac Cafferty = Against, Miller = For, Shanks = For, Yates = For. (Councillor Janio had left the meeting).


RESOLVED: The Committee has taken into consideration and does not agree with the reasons for the recommendation set out below and resolves to REFUSE planning permission for the reasons proposed by Councillor Fishleigh.

Supporting documents:


Bookmark this page using:

Find out more about social bookmarking

These sites allow you to store, tag and share links across the internet. You can share these links both with friends and people with similar interests. You can also access your links from any computer you happen to be using.

If you come across a page on our site that you find interesting and want to save for future reference or share it with other people, simply click on one of these links to add to your list.

All of these sites are free to use but do require you to register. Once you have registered you can begin bookmarking.

Brighton & Hove City Council | Hove Town Hall | Hove | BN3 3BQ | Tel: (01273) 290000 | Mail: | how to find us | comments & complaints