Rear extension and raised terrace at 63 Lyminster Avenue, Brighton

The site

The site is a two-storey semi-detached house with rendered walls, a brick plinth and tiled roof, outside a conservation area.

“The application site relates to a two-storey semi-detached dwellinghouse with rendered walls, a brick plinth and tiled roof, located on the northwest side of Lyminster Avenue.”

“The site is not within a conservation area and there are no Article 4 Directions covering the site relating to extensions or alterations.”

Officer report

Changes to the proposal

The original full-width, full-height two-storey extension was amended, reduced in depth and height, and shown with existing boundary hedgerows retained.

“Planning permission is sought for the erection of a part-single, part-two storey rear extension with an extension of the roof above. Permission is also sought for the creation of a raised terrace to the rear garden.”

“The original proposal sought permission for a two storey, full width and full height rear extension. During the course of determining the application, the proposal was amended to a part-single, part-two storey rear extension. The two-storey element of the extension was also reduced in depth and height. A number of changes were made to the drawings to improve their accuracy. The existing high-level boundary hedgerows were added to the drawings.”

Officer report

Effects on neighbours

Officers acknowledged some effect on a neighbouring kitchen window but considered the extension, daylight impact and terrace acceptable with privacy protection.

“The single storey element of the proposed extension would impact the outlook of the adjoining neighbour No.61 due to its proximity to the shared boundary and is likely to reduce the outlook available from their ground floor kitchen window. It would project 4m beyond the rear elevation of the houses.”

“The proposed raised terrace would be approximately 3.0 metres deep and set off the boundary and would be screened either side by the existing mature hedgerows which run the full length of the boundary. Utilising the existing hedgerows as screening would have a natural appearance and would result in less disruption to both the neighbours and the biodiversity of the site. This helps mitigate the impact of the terrace.”

Officer report

Objections raised

A neighbour and councillors objected over overbearing development, loss of light, boundary and drawing concerns, hedgerow loss, drainage and privacy.

“One (1) letter has been received objecting to the proposed development. Another letter has been received from a planning consultant on behalf of the same neighbour. The letters object to the proposed development for the following reasons: • Damaging trees/shrubs - negative impact on local wildlife • Inappropriate height of development • Overdevelopment • Overshadowing/sense of enclosure • Loss of light • Poor design • Restriction of view…”

“Councillors Alistair McNair and Anne Meadows have objected to the application also raising concerns that the extension is overbearing, too close to the shared boundary, would result in a loss of light, loss of the existing established hedge, would conflict with the Council’s SPD on householder extensions, and would impact on the neighbour’s drainage. A copy of this correspondence is attached to this report.”

Officer report

Who spoke

An objecting resident asked the committee to refuse, while the applicant’s agent said amendments addressed concerns and asked for approval.

The vote

The committee rejected the officer recommendation by four votes to six and then recorded six votes for refusal against four.

“A vote was taken, and by 4 to 6 the committee did not agree with the case officer’s recommendation.”

“A recorded vote was taken, and the following voted for the refusal: Councillors: Earthey, Loughran, Nann, Shanks, Theobald and Winder. The following Councillors voted against the refusal: Cattell, Parrott, Sheard and Thomson. Officers to draft reason for refusal and send to proposer (Councillor Theobald) and seconder (Councillor Shanks).”

Minutes

The decision

The application was refused because the extension was considered overbearing and overshadowing, causing loss of amenity to the neighbour.

“Councillor Theobald, seconded by Councillor Shanks proposed that the application should be refused for being overbearing and overshadowing the neighbour leading to a loss of amenity.”

Minutes