Agenda item - BH2014/00433 - 17 Old Shoreham Road, Hove - Full Planning

Erection of single storey rear extension with associated landscaping and parking alterations.

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

(2)             The Area Planning Manager, Nicola Hurley, gave a presentation by reference to photographs, plans and elevational drawings. The property was in use as a care home and had previously been extended; the proposed application would provide an additional eight en-suite bedrooms and would be single storey. There was also of letter of support from both of the local Ward Councillors. The main considerations related to the principle of the extension; the design and appearance; highways matters and tree considerations. Policy allowed extensions to residential care homes where criteria set out in Policy HO11 were met; however, there was in concern in relation to criteria A) as the proposed extension would add an additional 24 metres to the length of the property and involve the partial excavation of the garden. The extension was considered excessive as it was twice the length of the existing building and would double the ground floor space of the building. The proposal would dominate the rear garden and the form was inappropriate and incongruous. The impact on the amenity of the neighbouring properties was outlined and in particular it was noted that no. 15 would be impacted upon as the side windows served a secondary kitchen window, garage and utility room – if granted the windows at this outlook could be obscurely glazed. There were concern in relation to the excessive depth of the extension and it was considered that this would be un-neighbourly. Whilst the principle of the development was supported this did not outweigh the concerns of Officers and for the reasons set out in the report the application was recommended for refusal.

(3)             The Head of Development Control, Jeanette Walsh, noted that at the site visit Officers had paced out approximately 17 metres; when this should have been 23 metres.

Public Speakers(s) and Questions

(4)             Councillor K. Norman spoke in support of the application; he highlighted that he was speaking on behalf on the Ward Councillors who were both unable to attend the meeting. Both of the Ward Councillors were in support of the application and in favour of the proposed development, and added that similar size extensions had been agreed in the neighbouring ward for student accommodation. He stated that there was a citywide need for these types of facilities, and a desire to use facilities within the city rather than have to send people outside of the city to meet their long-term care needs.

(5)             In response to Councillor Davey it was explained by Councillor K. Norman that this site should be viewed in comparative terms to those of a similar scale that had been granted planning permission.

(6)             Mr Peter Mallinson and Mr David Kemp spoke in support of the application in their capacity as the applicant and the architect respectively. Mr Mallinson explained that he had been the director of Loxwood House [the application site] since 1985 and the facility provided care for people with learning disabilities and in the last couple of years had extended services to those with dementia. The garden was currently underused and the architect had put forward a commendable scheme. Mr Kemp stated that that the property had been a care home for many years and the traditional appearance had been maintained internally and externally. The proposed extension would be linked to the parent building to provide access for staff and residents. The proposal would maintain two areas of external space: a sensory courtyard garden and significant remaining area of lawn at the rear. The new rooms would meet current standards for hygiene and dignity and the net gain would actually be seven bedrooms due to loss of one to provide the extension.

(7)             In response to a question from Councillor Davey it was explained by Mr Kemp that a more ecological development had not been considered as the intention was to mirror the style of the existing building and make the additional footprint a reasonable size.

Question(s) for Officers

(8)             It was confirmed in response to Councillor Hyde that the length of the remaining lawn would be 15 metres.

(9)             In response to Councillor Davey the Area Planning Manager confirmed that, in policy terms, an extension would not be expected to meet the same levels of sustainability as a new build property. It was also confirmed that the main objection related to the size and there had been advice from Officers at the pre-application stage that a reduction in the length would be more acceptable.

(10)          In response to Councillor C. Theobald it was confirmed that three apples trees would be felled as part of the application. 

Debate and Decision Making Process

(11)          Councillor Hyde noted the difficulty of the decision, and stated that she was content with the amount of garden space that would remain if the application were granted. The extension was big in scale and whilst this was not ideal the excavation would not impact on the neighbouring properties and the potentially affected rooms were not habitable rooms. The social benefits of the scheme outweighed the concerns about the size of the proposals, and it was preferable that more residential care placements be provided within the city.

(12)          Councillor Jones noted he sympathised with the applicant, and felt that it would not be possible to turn the property back into a family home. He recognised the potential to overdevelop site, but noted that recent legislative changes had placed increased regulations on social care providers. He stated he was still undecided on the application.

(13)          Councillor Littman noted he echoed many of the points made in the debate, and he did not usually support such applications building on existing gardens spaces; however, he recognised the shortage of residential care places within the city, and on balance he would not support the Officer recommendation.

(14)          Councillor C. Theobald noted that the city needed more residential care places, but she felt the size of the proposal was too large – like Councillor Jones she was undecided.

(15)          Councillor Cox noted that two local residential care homes had shut recently as they were no longer economically viable due to the recent changes to regulations. He noted the issues in relation to the size of the proposals and stated that he recognised the need for such facilities in the city.

(16)          Councillor Gilbey stated that she had been concerned with the close proximity of the windows of the neighbouring property. She sympathised with the applicant and noted that the proposals would not be visible from the road. She stated that the decision was very difficult, but she was leaning towards voting against the Officer recommendation.

(17)          Councillor Davey reiterated the difficulty of the decision and the need for such facilities; however, he felt that the proposal was too big and felt there was the potential for something smaller with a higher level of sustainability to come forward.

(18)          The Chair stated that he agreed was many of the comments made by colleagues, but he was of the view the proposals were too big and the amenity of future occupants of the neighbouring properties would be adversely affected. The blank 24 metre wall was not good architecture and he would support the Officer recommendation.

(19)          Before the vote was taken the Head of Development Control noted that there was no objection to the principle of the development, and there had been no discussion with the Local Planning Authority by the applicant in terms of viability.

(20)          A vote was taken and the Officer recommendation to refuse permission was carried on a vote of 7 in support with 4 against.

189.5    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.           Having regard to the excessive scale of the proposed extension in relation to the existing property and surrounding area, the proposal would significantly detract from the character and appearance of the host building and stand out as an inappropriate and unsympathetic addition. The coverage of the plot is disproportionate to the scale of the building and surrounding area and the proposal is considered overdevelopment of the site. The scheme is therefore contrary to policies QD1, QD2 and QD14 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan and Supplementary Planning Document 12: Design Guide for Extensions and Alterations.

    ii.           Given the scale and projection of the proposed extension in close proximity to the boundary with 15 Old Shoreham Road, the proposal would result in an increased sense of enclosure and an unneighbourly form of development. The scheme therefore results in a loss amenity and is contrary to policies QD14, QD27 and HO11 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.

Note: Councillor Duncan was not present at the meeting.