Bungalow extensions and dormer at 15 Evelyn Avenue, Rustington

What was proposed

The application proposed a front porch, a rear extension replacing the conservatory, roof alterations, a rear dormer, rooflights and side windows.

“DESCRIPTION OF APPLICATIONAt ground floor level, the application proposes a single storey front porch and a single storey rear extension. The proposal also includes works to the roof, namely hip to gable extensions, a rear dormer, roof lights and side windows. RELEVANT SITE HISTORY”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is a detached bungalow in a residential area mainly characterised by detached bungalows, within Rustington Neighbourhood Plan Character Area 6.

“DESIGN AND VISUAL AMENITY The site is a detached bungalow within Character Area 6 of the Rustington Neighbourhood Plan (RNP); therefore, the proposal must be assessed against RNP policy 2.”

“The development is in a residential area characterised by a mix of detached bungalows; some of which have constructed a variety of extensions. It is noted that the Parish Council raised an objection on matters of character, scale and design and referred to RNP policy 2. RNP policy 2 states the design of all housing schemes should reflect the local character by way of dominant built form, historic character and/or landscape character.”

Officer report

Earlier lawful development

A previous lawful development certificate confirmed that similar hip-to-gable roof alterations, a rear dormer, rooflights and side windows could be built without planning permission.

“R/6/26/CLPLawful development certificate for proposed hip to gable extensions, rear dormer, roof lights and side windows. PP Not Required 12-02-26”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the proposal was considered acceptable in design and would not cause demonstrable harm to neighbouring residential amenity.

“Whilst the proposal would alter the appearance of the host dwelling, particularly at roof level, and would result in an increased bulk and massing to the rear of the dwelling, it is acknowledged that the hip to gable roof extensions could be constructed under permitted development, and a rear dormer of a similar size and scale would also not require planning permission, if finished in external materials to match the host dwelling.”

“NEIGHBOURING RESIDENTIAL AMENITY The proposed front porch would be set in 5.5m from the northern side boundary and set back 11m from the front boundary to the east. Given the size and scale of the porch, and the spacing maintained between the porch and neighbouring properties, the porch would not result in overbearing or overshadowing impacts to neighbouring properties.”

Officer report

Objections and amended plans

The parish council and five objectors opposed the proposal, while amended plans removed the cladding and specified materials matching the existing dwelling.

“REPRESENTATIONS Rustington Parish Council (RPC) - Object: (i) The hip to gable extensions and rear dormer, by reason of its size, mass and design would present an overbearing and unsympathetic appearance for the occupiers of neighbouring properties, and would result in a loss of light and privacy, particularly for the occupiers of 11 Evelyn Avenue, adversely affecting their visual amenities.”

“The applicant submitted amended plans during the course of this application to remove the originally proposed cladding. The proposed extensions and alterations are now proposed to be finished in external materials to match the existing dwelling. POLICY CONTEXT Built Up Boundary Area. Within an area with potentially high ground water.”

Officer report

Who spoke

Three public speakers took part: a parish councillor and two objectors.

What members debated

Members discussed overdevelopment, neighbouring impacts, privacy, character, permitted development, policy conflict, a site visit and obscure glazing.

“Members expressed concerns that the proposal represented overdevelopment, with particular reference to the impact on neighbouring properties, loss of privacy and character, and its effect on the wider street scene. Concern was also raised about the implications of permitted development having allowed earlier roof alterations to proceed without consultation and the potential precedent this could set.”

“A member asked whether the conflict with Policy 2 of the Neighbourhood Plan was sufficient to defend a refusal at appeal and whether obscure glazing could be required. The officer advised that the conflict was noted but was not sufficient to justify refusal, as similar works could be carried out under permitted development. It was also advised that requiring obscure glazing to rear windows would be unreasonable and could result in poor levels of natural light.”

Minutes

The vote

The motion to add obscure glazing to the side windows was carried, and the additional condition became part of the substantive conditions.

“Councillor Partridge proposed that a condition be added requiring the side windows to be obscurely glazed, and this was seconded by Councillor Bence.”

“Following a vote, the motion was declared CARRIED and the additional condition then formed part of the substantive conditions of the Officer recommendation.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee resolved to approve the application conditionally.

“That the application be APPROVED CONDITIONALLY.”

Minutes