Agenda item - BH2013/00254 - Land to South of 32 Cambridge Grove, Hove-Full Planning Permission

Erection of 1 no. 3 bedroom dwelling.

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE

Ward Affected: Goldsmid

              Minor Applications

              Erection of 1 no. 3 bedroom dwelling.

(1)          It was noted that this application had been the subject of a site visit prior to the meeting. Also, that no further public speaking would be permitted as the decision to defer the application for a site visit had been taken following submissions by speakers at the Committee’s previous meeting.

              Introduction from Officers

(2)          The Planning Manager, Mr Ellwood gave a presentation detailing the constituent elements of the scheme in relation to the neighbouring buildings by reference to photographs showing views across the site, the site plan and elevational drawings showing the site in the context of the neighbouring listed buildings in Cromwell Road and properties in the The Drive.

(3)          It was considered that the development would result in a harmful loss of openness between the listed buildings fronting Cromwell Road and the mews buildings at the rear, to the detriment of the prevailing character and appearance of the Willett Estate Conservation Area and that it would fail to respect or enhance the local neighbourhood and would be detrimental to the amenity of adjoining properties. It would also fail to meet an acceptable level of sustainability, Level 3 had been indicated by the applicants, whereas the Council would require Level 5 to be attained, the application was therefore recommended for refusal.

              Questions of Officers and Decision Making Process

(4)          In answer to questions the Planning Manager explained that no details had been obtained in respect of the proposed green wall and how it would be planted and maintained.

              Debate and Decision Making Process

(5)          Councillor Mac Cafferty sought clarification that Cambridge Grove opened onto the Drive. It was confirmed that the Deputy Development  Control Manager had been able to confirm that this was the case following a recent site visit he had made. Councillor Mac Cafferty stated that in his view the locality was already enclosed, he did not consider therefore that the proposed development would have the impact on visual amenity indicated.

(6)          The Chair, Councillor Hawtree stated that it had been beneficial to carry out a site visit as it had enabled Members to view the site from the rear in the context of the rear of the neighbouring buildings, particularly those in Cromwell Road which were listed and had retained their original architectural form.

(7)          A vote was taken and of the 11 Members present at the meeting planning permission was refused on a vote of 10 to 1.

204.3    RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out section 11 of the report and the policies and guidance in section 7 and resolves to REFUSE planning permission for the reasons set out below.