Two-storey and rear extensions at The Beaumont, 8 Ockley Lane, Hassocks

What was proposed

The application proposed a two-storey side extension, a single-storey rear extension and works to reduce and level the driveway.

“Proposal: Proposed two storey side extension and single storey rear extension. External works to reduce and level the driveway.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is a two-storey detached dwelling in Hassocks, with neighbouring properties to the north and south and a rear garden to the east.

“(approved) 9.0 Site and Surroundings 9.1 The Beaumont, 8 Ockley Lane is a two-storey detached hipped roofed dwelling. The dwelling is characterised by front gables. The walls are a mix of face brickwork and hanging tiles with upvc doors and windows.”

Officer report

Objections from a neighbour

A neighbour objected that the extension would harm light and outlook, including daylight to the kitchen and living room.

“Recommendation 3.1 It is recommended that planning permission be approved subject to the conditions outlined at Appendix A. Summary of Representations 4.1 No.10 Ockley Lane has objected to the proposal on the following grounds: - Impact on light and Outlook - Lounge and kitchen will look directly on to this huge and imposing development - A light survey has now been undertaken and some calculations have purportedly suggested that this brick wall will be fine when I…”

“- I am extremely concerned that the light into our living room would be materially impacted 5.0 Summary of Consultees 5.1 Southern Water: Southern Water has determined that the flow rate for the above site will remain consistent, so capacity is not an issue and no Southern Water assets will be affected. Therefore, Southern Water has no objections to this proposal.”

Officer report

People who spoke

Two speakers spoke in favour of the application.

What members debated

Members debated natural light, the accuracy of light estimates, the kitchen-diner, the relevant amenity test, the garage layout and the hedge distance.

“Members discussed the impact of the extension on the provision of natural light to a neighbouring property, with several expressing concern about the impact on the neighbouring property to the north. Reference was made to the potential accuracy of the light estimates. Members also discussed the need for lighting in kitchen/diners as opposed to kitchens, as the potentially affected area on the neighbouring property was kitchen/diner.”

“Members discussed the layout of the proposed extension, clarifying the previous conversion of the existing garage into a half garage and office, as well as discussing the distance of a hedge to the neighbouring property.”

Minutes

The committee vote

Members voted to refuse the application, with six in favour, four against and one abstention.

“Councillor Henwood proposed that the application be refused due to unacceptable harm to neighbouring amenity. This was seconded by Councillor Cherry and approved with 6 in favour, 4 against and 1 abstention.”

Minutes