Agenda item - BH2014/03742 - Hove Business Centre, Fonthill Road, Hove - Full Planning

Creation of 4no one bedroom flats, 4no two bedroom flats and 1no three bedroom flat on existing flat roof incorporating revised access and associated works.

RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

Creation of 4no one bedroom flats, 4no two bedroom flats and 1no three bedroom flat on existing flat roof incorporating revised access and associated works.

(1)          The Planning Manager, Applications, Nicola Hurley referred to additional letters of support and in objection to the application which had been received. A presentation was given by reference to photographs including views from adjacent locations including the railway footbridge, from New Town Road and from the rear garden of number 24, existing and proposed floor plans and elevational drawings. Planning permission for the nine flats at roof level would be accessed via an internal walkway along the rear of the roof. The additional floor would be metal/zinc clad with balconies to the south side.

(2)          It was considered that the impact of the proposed additional storey on the appearance of this non-designated heritage asset was acceptable in respect of the nature of the significance of the building and the public benefits of providing additional housing units. Whilst the additional storey would impact on the amenities of residents to the rear along Newtown Road, it was not considered that the loss of daylight and sunlight would be sufficiently significant to warrant refusal. It was considered that subject to conditions the amenities of future occupiers would be sufficiently protected from existing activities in the building, the proposed development complied therefore with development plan policies and was therefore recommended minded to grant.

              Public Speaker(s) and Questions

(3)          Mr Rob Miller spoke as a neighbouring objector who lived to the rear of the site and on behalf of other objectors. He stated that the surveys carried out in relation to noise emanating from the dance studios were flawed as they had taken place over a half-term holiday period which did not accurately reflect either the number of classes which usually took place over the course of a day/week, nor the number attending them. Furthermore, the light survey was incorrect in that the loss of daylight to the properties located to the rear would be far more detrimental than indicated by the applicants and would be a loss of some 20% in the winter - far lower than the level indicated as being acceptable under BRE guidelines. In his view the application would be contrary to policies SU10 and QD27 and should be refused.

(4)          Mr Nigel McMillan spoke on behalf of the applicants in support of their application. He stated that the proposals represented good use of a brownfield site which were well designed and would provide much needed housing. Amendments had been made to the submitted scheme in order to address the concerns expressed by residents, levels of light loss and noise impact would be minimal. The scheme would remove the existing roof top clutter and the flats would be set back from the existing elevations.

(5)       Councillor Wealls referred to the comments made by the objector and asked of the applicant’s agent how he reconciled them with those indicated in the survey carried out on behalf of the applicants as they appeared to be at variance with one another. Mr McMillan explained that the surveys undertaken had been undertaken by independent experts.

(6)       Councillor Davey referred to the close proximity of the site to Hove station and asked whether in addition to potential noise breakout, account had been taken of the possible impact of train noise on any future occupants.

(7)       Councillor Hyde asked why the applicants intended to use metal/zinc materials which appeared to be at odds with the existing building. It was explained that it was considered this would provide a contemporary solution which would be lightweight and durable. When erected in situ the material would not appear dark.

Questions for Officers

(8)       Councillor Hamilton asked whether the dance studios could be located on other floors within the building, given that this might reduce some of the concerns in respect of potential noise nuisance. It was explained that this could be as a result of landlord and tenant issues.

(9)       Councillor Hyde stated that she considered it would be beneficial for a site visit to take place prior to determination of the application; this was seconded by Councillor Mac Cafferty (the Chair) and agreed by the Committee.

127.8  RESOLVED – That consideration of the application be deferred in order to enable a site visit to take place.

Note1: Councillor Carden was absent from the meeting during consideration of the above item and took no part in the discussion or decision making process.

              Note 2: It was noted that as the decision to conduct a site visit prior to determination of the application had been made after the objector and applicant’s agent had spoken that no further public speaking would be permitted in respect of this application.