Agenda item - BH2014/02412 - 168 Old Shoreham Road, Hove - Full Planning

Part change of use of ground floor from offices (B1) to residential (C3) with the erection of a single storey rear extension with associated external alterations to create 1no one bedroom flat (Part Retrospective).

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Part change of use of ground floor from offices (B1) to residential (C3) with the erection of a single storey rear extension with associated external alterations to create 1no one bedroom flat (Part Retrospective).

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

(2)             The Area Planning Manager, Nicola Hurley, introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to photographs, plans and elevational drawings. There was already permission in place for a change of use that had been granted earlier in the year. The main considerations related to the principle of the change of use; the design; the impact on the characteristics of the area; the standard of the accommodation; sustainability and transport matters. It was explained that the site had been the subject of two previous applications – the first being refused and the second receiving approval. Policy sought to protect the employment space, but there had been no serious interest in the premises since July 2012, and it was considered that the office space was redundant. The proposed extensions were well designed and had been reduced in size to an acceptable width. It was not considered that there would be any harm to neighbouring amenity, and the standard of accommodation was acceptable.

Public Speaker(s) and Questions

(3)             Mr Colin Hughes spoke in objection to the scheme in his capacity as a local resident. He stated that he had recently been refused permission to his property next door for ‘tilt and turn’ windows that he had sought for emergency access. He felt the addition of the building would significantly impact on his home, and noted that the applicant was not of residence in the area and he was of the view the scheme was for profit making purposes. There would be three flats in the property when the works had been completed, and no ‘right to light’ study had been undertaken despite his requests. The scheme included patio doors over the roof terrace, and it would also seriously impact on the amount of sunlight in his neighbouring garden. In summary he added that the original form of the building should be left intact.

(4)             In response to Councillor Cox the objector confirmed the proposed location of the ‘tilt and turn’ windows on his property.

(5)             Mr David Chetwin spoke in support of the application in his capacity as the agent. He stated that the scheme only requested modest changes, and gave assurance that the flat roof would not be used a terrace as it would have a roof light and no balustrading would be installed. It was not his view that there would be issues with daylight and sunlight, and every effort had been made to reduce the impact of the extension. The design was highly sustainable; in line with policy and would provide new homes.

Questions for Officers

(6)             In response to Councillor C. Theobald it was confirmed daylight and sunlight studies were not normally requested on schemes of his size – the Officer recommendation also reflected the view that there would be no impact.

(7)             In response to Councillor Cox it was clarified that the scheme at the neighbouring property had been refused due to concerns with the detailing of the windows at the front of the property, and not simply for the ‘tilt and turn’ window at the rear. Any new change to the neighbouring property would have to form the subject of a new application, but similar changes within the street would be a material consideration. In response to further queries from Councillor Robins it was explained that the neighbour’s refused application had also been dismissed at appeal.

(8)             It was confirmed for Councillor C. Theobald that there was already a proposed condition to restrict the use of the flat roof as a terrace, and future permitted development rights had been removed.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(9)             Councillor Cox stated that he had some unease in relation to this application, and he understood the objector’s reservations – the Chair added that enforcement action could be taken if the conditions were not complied with.

(10)          A vote was then taken by the 10 Members present and the Officer recommendation that permission be granted was carried on a vote of 6 in support; 3 against and 1 abstention.

103.2      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 GRANT planning permission subject to conditions and informatives. 

Note: Councillor Jones was not present at the meeting. Councillor Davey was not present during the consideration and vote on the application; see minute 98.3.