Agenda item - BH2013/03702 - 17 Hill Drive, Hove - Full Planning

Erection of 4no bedroom house with garage to replace existing bungalow.

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE

Erection of 4no bedroom house with garage to replace existing bungalow.

(1)                   The Area Planning Manager, Nicola Hurley, introduced the report and gave a presentation by reference to photographs, plans and elevational drawings. The application site related to a detached bungalow, and it was noted that permission had been refused in August 2013 for a detached dwelling for reasons relating to design and scale. Permission was sought for the demolition of the existing bungalow and the creation of a new house. The new house would be flat roofed with a garage at the lower ground floor and living accommodation across the ground and first floors. The main considerations related to the impact of the proposed development on the street scene and adjoining occupiers and transport and sustainability matters. The setting was not so sensitive as to prevent a contemporary design, but the provision of the flat roof against the predominant pitched roofs in the area upset the rhythm in the street. The design relied on fenestration and would give undue prominence to the property – unlike the rest of the area – creating an overbearing and visually intrusive design. The development was also considered to have a detrimental impact on neighbouring amenity.  For the reasons set out in the report the application was recommended for refusal.

Public Speakers and Questions

(2)                   Mr Phillips spoke in support of the applicant in his capacity as the architect. He stated that the planning report was generally positive and was well considered. Most of the reasons for refusal related to architectural design, and Mr Phillips added that there was no longer an Architect’s Panel to advise the Council. Where developments sought to be more energy efficient this could often be best achieved through a flat roof. It was considered a flat roof design ‘looked to the future’ and the Committee were invited to approve the application as good architecture.

(3)                   In response to Councillor Davey it was explained by Mr Phillips that the scheme largely followed the footprint of the existing property and no part of the two storey house was above the garage.

(4)                   Mr Phillips confirmed for Councillor Carden that the normal life expectancy of a flat roof was at least 20 years.

(5)                   In response to Councillor Hyde it was explained by Mr Phillips that flat roofs increased the potential photovoltaic panel coverage.

Questions for Officers

(6)                   In response to Councillor Gilbey it was clarified that the predominant character of the area was pitched roofs.

(7)                   In response to Councillor Davey it was explained that the footprint projected back further at the rear, and the additional storey increased the bulk which contributed to the reasons for refusal.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(8)                   Councillor C. Theobald stated that the reasons for refusal related to scale and dominance, and the sense of enclosure at the rear; for these reasons she would support the Officer recommendation.

(9)                   Councillor Hyde added that the proposed development had no characteristics of the surrounding architectural features, and would be overbearing in relation to the prominent location of the site on the junction. She felt the flat roof would be harmful to the character of the area, and the impact on the neighbouring properties was hard to overcome.

(10)               Councillor Mac MacCafferty stated that he had no problem with the design, but appreciated matters in relation to the character of the area.

(11)               Councillor Davey stated that he was minded to support the scheme as it had some merits.

(12)               Councillor Gilbey expressed her concern with the flat roof and the scale and bulk; she added that it failed to contribute positively to the character of the area.

(13)               A vote was taken and the Officer recommendation to refuse permission was carried on a vote of 6 in favour, with 3 against and 2 abstentions.

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

Reasons for Refusal:

              i.           The development by reason of its design, scale and detailing would appear unduly dominant and create a contrast and sense of bulk which, in relation to adjoining properties and the wider surrounding area, would harm the existing character and appearance of Hill Drive. The development therefore fails to respond sufficiently to the character and appearance of the existing built environment, and is contrary to policies QD1 and QD2 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

            ii.           The development by virtue of the bulk and form projecting significantly to the rear curtilage of the property would be visually intrusive and cause an increased sense of enclosure for occupiers of no.19 Hill Drive and is contrary to policy QD27 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

Informatives:

              i.           In accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy SS1 of the Brighton & Hove City Plan Part One (submission document) the approach to making a decision on this planning application has been to apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development. The Local Planning Authority seeks to approve planning applications which are for sustainable development where possible.

              Note: Councillor Duncan was not present at the meeting.