An appeal has been lodged after councillors rejected plans for a first-floor extension to a modern house near Preston Park.
Rory Aitkenhead, 38, wants to fit solar panels on the roof and extend the first floor of the modern stepped building that he and his family have lived in since 2022.
But in May, the 10 members of Brighton and Hove City Council’s Planning Committee held a tied vote, with five votes for and against the scheme.
It was turned down on the casting vote of the chair, Labour councillor Liz Loughran, who also represents Preston Park ward.
The proposal was thrown out even though a report recommended granting planning permission to extend 34B Preston Park Avenue, a modern building behind number 34, a former care home.
The reasons for refusal were that the plans submitted by Mr Aitkenhead, who works as an architect, were not a high-quality design and would cause harm to the Preston Park Conservation Area.
Councillors also cited the proposal’s “inappropriate height and massing”, creating an “overbearing development”, and so contrary to various council planning policies.
Seven objections from neighbours were sent to the council plus one from Green councillor Kerry Pickett who also represents Preston Park ward and who addressed the Planning Committee meeting in May.
In his appeal documents, Mr Aitkenhead said that he believed that the application complied with all relevant council planning policies.
He said that he was initially told that no objectors would be speaking at the Planning Committee meeting but that changed when he was given 30 minutes’ notice of Councillor Pickett’s representation.
In his appeal documents, he said that the deciding vote was cast by a Preston Park ward councillor.
Last year, the council turned down Mr Aitkenhead’s previous application for a first-floor extension and an accessible roof terrace because of the scale and design.
The most recent application was rejected even though Mr Aitkenhead said that he had addressed the reasons for the previous refusal.
The latest application was amended in response to suggestions from planning officers, leading Mr Aitkenhead to expect that it would be voted through.
Mr Aitkenhead said: “The decision made by the committee is against the conservation officer and planning officer recommendations with no substantiated reasoning.
“We believe this is a predominate reason for the application of associated costs related to this appeal submission.
“We also believe that the extremely late notice to attend the committee hearing is also unacceptable.”
To see the appeal application, search for BH2024/00077 in the planning portal on the council’s website or search for 3348811 on the Planning Inspectorate’s website.