Agenda item - BH2013/00588 - 31 Old Shoreham Road, Hove - Full Planning Permission

Demolition of existing house and erection of 6no bedroom detached dwelling

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE

Demolition of existing house and erection of 6no bedroom detached dwelling

(1)                   It was noted that this application had been the subject of a site visit prior to the meeting.

(2)                   The Area Planning Manager introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to plans, photographs and elevational drawings. The site was located on the north side of Old Shoreham Road, and due to the rise in ground level it sat one storey above street level with access by steps from the pavement. The application sought the demolition of the existing building, and the construction of a new building of contemporary design. The proposal would also require excavation to create a lower ground floor. It was considered that the modern design was an acceptable approach to the development, but it was felt that this particular design did not enhance or relate sympathetically with the surrounding area. Although the property would be set back from the road Officers were not convinced that the property would be adequately screened by vegetation. The lower ground floor would project, and it was also felt that this was out of keeping. It was noted that there had been an initial support from the Case Officer, but this had been before the proper consideration of all policies. For the reasons set out in the report the application was recommended for refusal.

Public Speakers and Questions

(3)                   Dr Cartwright, together with the architect Mr Phillips, spoke in support of the application in her capacity as the applicant. She stated that she and her family wished to build a family home to accommodate their three generation family, and they had worked closely with the Case Officer who was initially supportive of the scheme and recommending approval. Communication then ‘dried up’ and they were unable to get further clarification about the Case Officer’s concerns in relation to policy QD2, and additional information that had been submitted to help mitigate these concerns had not received considered in the final report to the Committee. The scheme would have more green space than the current arrangements with the existing property; the area also had a wide range of styles and sizes of properties with differing roof lines, and other examples of modern architecture. There were also letters of support for the scheme.

Questions for Officers

(4)                   In response to a query from Councillor Littman the difference in height between the existing and proposed building was clarified, but it was also noted that the existing building had accommodation in a pitched roof and the proposed building was much more bulky.

(5)                   It was confirmed for Councillor Carol Theobald the trees that were the subject of TPOs.

(6)                   It was confirmation for Councillor Gilbey that the current distance from the front of the property to the rear of the plot was 34 metres; this would be reduced to 21 metres with the proposals.

(7)                   Councillor Shanks asked for further information on the applicant’s comments about the change of position of the Case Officer. In response the Head of Development Control explained that the Case Officer had given pre-application advice, and was initially encouraging of the design; a report was drafted for approval; however, further examination of policy QD2 had led to a recommendation for refusal.

(8)                   Councillor Mac Cafferty highlighted some of the points made by the applicant, and asked how Officers had come to the conclusion in relation to policy QD2. In response Officers explained that the concern was not about the modern design, but related to the bulk and massing of the properties in what was an area characterised by two storey pitched roof houses.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(9)                   Councillor Wells stated that he did not find the proposals overbearing and he would be voting against the Officer recommendation.

(10)               Councillor Randall noted that he was unconvinced by the reasons for refusal, and he would be voting against the Officer recommendation.

(11)               Councillor Hyde stated that she agreed with the Officer report; she was not objecting to the modern design, but agreed that the proposals did not respect Policy QD2. The site was large enough for a big property, but something in-keeping would be more suitable, and she stated she would be voting in accordance with the Officer recommendation.

(12)               Councillor Jones noted that the report was very positive given that the application was recommended for refusal. It was a very well thought out design, and a modern development could be appropriate in this area of the city. He stated he would be voting in support of the Officer recommendation.

(13)               Councillor Shanks stated that she agreed with Councillor Jones, and it was good to see innovative design; as such she would not support the Officer recommendation.

(14)               Councillor Carol Theobald noted that the property was surrounded by other houses; she thought the design ‘hideous’ and out of keeping with the area; she stated she would support the Officer recommendation.

(15)               Councillor Gilbey stated that she was concerned the greenery at the front of the site would not sufficiently screen the proposed property, and she believed the properties along the same side of the road were more traditional in design.

(16)               Councillor Mac Cafferty noted that he was keen on the modern design, and would not be supporting the Officer recommendation.

(17)               Before a vote was taken the Head of Development Control noted that there was no objection in principal to the development, but the reasons for refusal were linked to Policy QD2.

(18)                  A vote was taken and the Officer recommendation to refuse was not carried on a vote of 6 to 3 with 3 abstentions. Councillor Jones proposed reasons for approval and these were seconded by Councillor Randall. These reasons were then read to the Committee, and it was agreed they reflected what had been put forward by Members. A recorded vote was then taken with the proposed reasons for approval and Councillors: Mac Cafferty, Jones, Cox, Shanks, Randall and Wells voted that planning permission be granted; Councillors: Hyde, Gilbey and Carol Theobald voted that planning permission be refused and Councillors: Carden, Hamilton and Littman abstained from the vote.

31.11    RESOLVED – That the Committee had taken into the consideration the Officer recommendation to refuse, but resolves to GRANT planning permission subject to the Head of Development Control agreeing Conditions and Informatives and for the reasons set out below:

        i.                 The proposed development is a reasonable building of good, well-thought out design and allows for plenty of open space. There is room for modern development in the neighbourhood, which already contains modern buildings.