Councillors reluctantly agreed to grant planning permission for a £1.25 million house currently subject to an enforcement order.
Brighton and Hove City Council had issued an enforcement notice for the demolition of the house built in a former back garden at 13C Shirley Drive.
The original application approved in September 2020 was for a two-storey, three-bedroom brick house.
Michael Deller, 42, bought the plot in June 2021 for £648,000 and built a six-bedroom, white-rendered house, with three of the bedrooms in an unauthorised 800sq ft basement.
Mr Deller lost his appeal against a council enforcement notice. The application, which went before councillors on Wednesday (1 April), brought the plans more in line with the original application.
The house is currently sold subject to contract by the receivers KR8 Real Estate and Advisory after being on the market for £1.25 million.
Amendments to the building include changing the basement, converting two of the three bedrooms into storage rooms and improving the lightwell in what would be the fourth bedroom.
A change of materials from brick to white render and a green roof to replace the artificial grass roof also formed part of the application.
Issues were also identified with the vehicle access due to a tree by the driveway.
Neighbour Esmé Hall urged the committee to refuse retrospective planning permission after a planning inspector ordered that the building be demolished. She said that the planning inspector was a “higher authority” than the council.
She said: “Practical convenience is not a planning reason. The officer frames demolition as a last resort and suggests this application offers a practical way forward.
“Administrative convenience is not a test in planning policy. The report refers sympathetically to a new application but whoever purchased this property did so knowing a demolition order was in force.”
Conservative councillor Ivan Lyons, who represents Westdene and Hove Park ward, said that neighbours wanted to see the owner comply with the original planning permission.
He said: “Access and egress for emergency vehicles will be well-nigh impossible, with no turning space, meaning that the vehicles have to either back in or back out.
“The other houses, where planning permission has been granted in this area, are in keeping with the area, while this one is not.”
Dave Wood, from the receivers, said that they had worked with the council to come up with a suitable solution because of the enforcement action.
Mr Wood said: “There’s no private individual or funder that stands to make a gain from this property.
“The funding will be making a loss on this. It’s already been placed in receivership.”
Planning Committee members shared their frustrations that Mr Deller did not attend the meeting to explain why the building was so different to the approved plans.
Conservative councillor Carol Theobald was one of two councillors to vote against the application.
Councillor Theobald said: “There are so many things wrong with this application. It just makes a mockery of the planning permission. It’s unauthorised development that has had an enforcement.
“Anybody could put in a retrospective application for anything now.”
Green councillor Kerry Pickett said that she was not against having a house in a back garden but criticised the design.
Councillor Pickett said: “I don’t like the lightwells. I don’t think they’re going to actually achieve what is needed to make this more habitable.
“I do think the rooms are a bit weird and I think I’ll be voting against it.”
Labour councillor Julie Cattell did not like what had been built, criticising the roof, windows and render.
Councillor Cattell said: “Demolition of this, if we decide to refuse it, I don’t think it’s particularly sustainable because this is a dwelling that in principle is ok. It meets our policies.
“There is already an extant permission which would have been to put a dwelling in the back.”
Labour councillor Sam Parrott said: “I don’t like the fact I’m giving planning permission for something that’s not planned but built. It feels incongruous to me.
“However, I have faith in building control and fire regulations.”
The committee voted seven to two in favour of the planning application.
