Householder alterations at 4 Benett Drive, Hove

What was proposed

The application sought householder planning consent involving roof dormers, a balcony, a roof terrace and a larger single-storey extension.

“Councillor Sheard was informed that the difference between this application and the 2014 application was the enlargement of the front elevation middle dormer, however, the rear roofscape is the same. The 2014 application had larger dormers to the rear and an additional single storey extension.”

“Councillor Robinson was informed that the balconies proposed in the 2019 application were Juliet style. The single storey extension proposed in the application is 1m larger than the 2019 application, and 3.5m beyond the original building. It was noted that overlooking is subjective. The roof terrace has been reduced and considered acceptable with the addition of privacy screens. The privacy of the gardens near to the property are protected.”

Minutes

Neighbour objections

A neighbour objected that the first-floor terrace would be overwhelming and cause overlooking, privacy loss, noise and overdevelopment.

“Colin Hawkins addressed the committee as a neighbour and stated that they lived at no.2 for the past 27 years. They object to the application as the first-floor terrace proposed will be overwhelming. The terrace will be a massive increase and lead to an invasion of privacy for the neighbour. The terrace will give a grandstand view of the neighbouring garden. The development will result in overlooking, loss of privacy and noise.”

Minutes

Who spoke

A neighbour addressed the committee and described concerns about the terrace, privacy, overlooking, noise and earlier refusals.

Members’ concerns

Members raised concerns about the balcony, privacy screens, overlooking, the property’s extensions and overdevelopment.

“Councillor Sheard expressed concerns that the proposed balcony is not suitable for the area. The privacy screens make the development worse.”

“Councillor Winder considered the property a jumble of extensions. The councillor was against the application.”

Minutes

The committee vote

The committee rejected the officer recommendation by 6 votes to 3, with six councillors supporting refusal and three opposing it.

“A vote was held and by 3 to 6 the committee did not agree with the officer recommendation. (Councillor Cattell had left the meeting and took no part in the discussions or decision-making process).”

“A recorded vote was held and the following councillors voted for the motion to refuse: Sheard, Shanks, Earthey, Theobald, Winder and Thomson. The following councillors voted against the motion to refuse: Nann, Robinson and Parrot.”

Minutes

The decision

The committee refused the application because it considered the scheme an overdevelopment and an invasion of privacy causing loss of neighbour’s amenities.

“A motion to refuse the application was made by Councillor Sheard and seconded by Councillor Earthey on the grounds that the scheme was an overdevelopment and invasion for privacy with loss of neighbour’s amenities under policies CP12 and DM21.”

“RESOLVED: That the committee refuse the application for the reasons set above, the wording to be agreed between the planning officers and the proposer and seconder.”

Minutes