Dormer windows at 87 Hove Park Road, Hove

The proposal

The application concerned householder planning consent at 87 Hove Park Road, Hove, and was introduced to the committee by the Planning Manager.

“The Planning Manager introduced the application to the committee.”

Minutes

Objections and support

A neighbouring resident and the ward councillor objected to overlooking, side dormers, windows and the property's three-storey appearance.

“Sinclair Bilton addressed the committee as a neighbouring resident and stated that there had been eight online objections to the application, which is most of the properties near to the application site, and they have all objected. Only one dormer required to have obscure glazing. The applicant will be able to see directly into the neighbour’s kitchen via the skylights. None of the windows are ‘non opening’. There are no side dormers in Hove Park Road, only Velux windows.”

“Ward Councillor Lyons stated that they considered the proposals should not overlook neighbours and the side dormers are not in keeping with the other properties. The side dormers will be able to look into neighbour’s bedrooms and kitchen areas. Other proposals have been refused, and Velux windows installed instead. The dormers also give the property a three-storey appearance. The Councillor requested that the committee refuse the application.”

Minutes

People who spoke

The agent said the scheme had been revised, a side gym window removed, obscure glazing offered and bat measures proposed.

Questions about windows

Members discussed obscure glazing, opening skylights, enforcement and views from a neighbouring single-storey extension.

“Councillor Robinson was informed that the plans have been revised and condition four requires obscure glazing. It was noted that under certain circumstances side windows are permissible under permitted development.”

“Councillor Shanks was informed that the skylights, when over 1.7m above floor level, can be opened. The neighbour stated that their kitchen was a single storey rear extension with two skylights which allows a view of the proposed position of the dormer window.”

Minutes

The committee debate

Some members considered the development and dormer design acceptable, while a motion proposed obscure glazing for all side dormers.

“Councillor Cattell considered the development would not cause harm and the design of the dormers was good. The councillor considered it was unlikely that the applicant would stand at a window and look at the neighbours.”

“Councillor Robinson proposed a motion to amend condition 4 to add obscure glazing to all side dormers. Wording to be agreed.”

Minutes

The votes

The committee amended a condition by five votes to four with one abstention and then unanimously agreed to grant permission.

“By a vote of 5 to 4, and 1 abstention, the committee agreed to amend condition 2.”

“A vote was held and the committee agreed unanimously to grant planning permission.”

Minutes

The decision

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