Rear house extensions at 77 Braemore Road, Hove

What was proposed

The application sought householder planning consent for rear extensions, including a first-floor addition and a single-storey ground-floor addition.

“Rose Bungener addressed the committee as neighbour and stated that they were speaking for all the neighbours, and they considered the proposals should be in line with the City Plan. The proposed first floor extension will lead to a 50% loss of sunlight to the neighbour, which is not in line with policy DM20. The ground floor extension will be 50% more than others in the street, going beyond and over building lines.”

“Michael Benwell addressed the committee as the agent acting on behalf of the applicant and stated that the application is nearly identical to the previous July 2022 scheme and the first floor satisfies guidance. The additions extend no further to the rear than the existing and are not a wrap around. The single storey addition includes a flat roof to reduce impact. A neighbour at number 88 has had an identical roof extension approved.”

Minutes

Who spoke

A neighbour spoke against the first-floor extension, and the agent said the scheme followed guidance and was acceptable under policy CP12.

Questions about sunlight

Members were told the loss of light was comparable to an earlier approval, mainly affected the neighbour’s rear garden, and did not require a sunlight assessment.

“Councillor Nann was informed that the consistency was important and there are a variety of extensions in the area. The proposals are to the rear of the property only. The loss of light is comparable to the previously approved application. A sunlight assessment was not required. It was noted that summer and winter sunlight are different. It is not usual for this scale of development to restrict working hours, and environmental health will cover any issues arising.”

“Councillor Cattell was informed that the objecting neighbour was to the north of the application site and the overshadowing and loss of light would be predominantly to the neighbour’s rear garden.”

Minutes

Members discussed the impacts

Members debated sunlight throughout the year, the neighbour’s garden, working hours, and whether the extensions were consistent with nearby development.

“Councillor Nann considered the loss of sunlight for the neighbour was an issue, and they would like an agreement regarding the hours of work. The councillor was against the application.”

“Councillor Sheard considered that the whole year should be considered regarding sunlight, not just the shortest day of the year.”

Minutes

The committee voted

The committee voted by seven votes to three to grant planning permission.

“A vote was held, and by 7 to 3, the committee agreed to grant planning permission.”

Minutes

Permission was granted

Planning permission was granted subject to the conditions and informatives in the report.

“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.”

Minutes