Agenda item - BH2013/02905 - 20a Cromwell Road, Hove - Full Planning

Conversion of outbuilding to form once bedroom dwelling (Retrospective).

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE

Conversion of outbuilding to form one bedroom dwelling (Retrospective).

(1)                   The Area Planning Manager introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to plans, photographs and elevational drawings. The application site was located on the northern side of Cromwell Road in a conservation area and was a five storey building including the basement and the roof accommodation. The site had previously been in use as a language school, and recently converted into five flats. Planning permission was sought for the conversion of the single storey outbuilding; which currently had use as an ancillary studio. The main considerations related to the principle of the change of use; the impact on amenity; parking and transport. Officers were of the view that the single elevation would provide sufficient screening – a fence had been proposed but this was removed from the scheme after concerns raised by the Heritage Officer. The use had been envisaged as intermittent in its current usage, and the application would create a much greater level of activity. For the reasons set out in the report the application was recommended for refusal.

Public Speakers and Questions

(2)                   Mr David Collins spoke in support of the application in his capacity as the applicant. He stated that the building was currently being used as a 1 bedroom dwelling. He stated that during the life of the application the matter of distance had not been raised by the Case Officer, and went on to highlight that the distance between the building and the parent building was comparable across the city, and many properties were much closer back to back. Mr Collins added that the report made assumptions in relation to the use of the gardens and went on to outline the personal circumstances for the application.

Questions for Officers

(3)                   In response to Councillor Pissaridou the term ‘ancillary’ was defined as it related to the application.

(4)                   In response to Councillor Jones it was confirmed that when a use was claimed to be ancillary Officers would confirm this position with the Council Tax department.

(5)                   It was confirmed to Councillor Hamilton that the windows at the rear of the parent building directly overlooked the outbuilding.

(6)                   In response to Councillor Cox it was clarified that when Officers considered ancillary buildings they looked carefully at the matters of fact and degree; with respect to the activities taking place in the building and the extent to which there was a relationship with the main residential property.

(7)                   It was confirmed to Councillor Davey that if the application were refused and the outbuilding continued to be occupied then the local planning authority would have to investigate the activities taking place.

(8)                   A vote was taken and the Officer recommendation to refuse planning permission was agreed on a vote of 8 to 3 with 1 abstention.  

129.6    RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration the recommendation and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in section 11 and resolves to REFUSE planning permission for the reason set out below:

              i.           The creation of a unit of self-contained residential accommodation would result in an intensification of use which would result in significantly increased levels of overlooking and loss of privacy to residents of no. 20 Cromwell Road, as well as overlooking from no. 20 Cromwell Road and its garden towards the building in question. Further, the creation of a permanent living unit would introduce a much greater level of activity, with resultant comings and goings through the rear garden at times when the area might be expected not to be in use. The proposed development would represent a poor standard of living accommodation for occupiers of the garden building, and would result in a loss of amenity for occupiers of no. 20 Cromwell Road and, to a lesser extent, towards neighbouring properties. As such, the proposed development would be contrary to policy QD27 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.