An architect has won an appeal to extend his Brighton home after councillors refused to grant planning permission for the scheme.
Rory Aitkenhead, 38, can now fit solar panels on the roof and extend the first floor of the modern house in Preston Park Avenue where he and his family have lived since 2022.
A report to Brighton and Hove City Council’s Planning Committee recommended approving Mr Aitkenhead’s planning application in May 2024 but the committee turned it down.
After a 5-5 tie, it fell to Liz Loughran, a Labour councillor for Preston Park ward, to use her casting vote as chair.
The committee refused the application on design grounds, saying that the extension would “introduce a higher blank façade to the rear elevation of number 34”.
Councillors were also concerned that the design would “cause harm to the Preston Park Conservation Area”.
Planning inspector John Allan said in a report that the extension was modest in size and blended in with the existing modern building which already had a blank façade.
He said: “The separation between No 34 and the first-floor front face of No 34B would reduce. However, I am satisfied that ample distance between them would be retained.
“I am not persuaded that the space between the existing buildings would be eroded to a degree that would be harmful or which would make them appear cramped in relation to each other.”
Mr Allan also said that there would be no harm to the conservation area.
Mr Aitkenhead was not awarded costs though because the committee made its decision based on proper planning principles supported by relevant policies.
I wonder how much councillor Liz Loughran’s casting vote has cost the council. Think the council normally end up covering the legal costs of the applicant when the planning inspectorate overrules them. As the Chair of planning surely she should take care to avoid risking public money unless shes confident there are solid legal grounds the planning inspecorate can’t overturn.
It literally says Mr Aitkenhead was not awarded costs though because the committee made its decision based on proper planning principles supported by relevant policies.
Yes there would have been a cost for the councils legal representative and planning officers time for this appeal (just as there are for any appeal) but that shouldn’t be a consideration when councillors decide to reject an application.
Would you have, for example, wanted the committee to just grant the gas works site development because the costs to the council of an appeal against approval would have been high?
This decision in this case was clearly finely balanced for the chair to have had to use her casting vote in the first place. And like all members on the committee they take their roles seriously and don’t make decision on a whim.
People who win a planning appeal don’t automatically get their costs refunded. There are strict criteria the inspector applies on this.
There is no “normally” involved.
It seems that the report provided by the council’s own planning officers, (they’re the ones with recognised qualifications and extensive experience on such matters), recommended the granting of planning permission but the committee refused anyway, (albeit a close run thing). Was it that political points count for more than following established planning principles or just Hubris? I wonder which it was?
Political point scoring or even hubris does not come into planning decisions.
Councillors regularly go against planning officers recommendations whether that’s refusing an application with a recommendation to approve and vice versa. There is no consistent party voting for or against.
For example for the gas works site application the officers recommendations was “minded to grant” but the councillors voted – on a cross party basis – to refuse the application with some councillors voting in favour of it.