Agenda item - BH2015/00439 - 68 Davigdor Road, Hove - Full Planning

Conversion of first floor flat and loft to create 3 no. flats including rear dormers and balcony, side dormer and front rooflights, removal of chimney stacks and additional rear window and doors at first floor level.

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Conversion of first floor flat and loft to create 3 no. flats including rear dormers and balcony, side dormer and front rooflights, removal of chimney stacks and additional rear window and doors at first floor level.

(1)             It was noted that the application had been deferred from the previous meeting to allow a site visit to take place.

(2)             The Planning Manager (Applications), Nicola Hurley, introduced the applications by reference to photographs, plans and elevational drawings. The site related to a two-storey property of the southern side of Davigdor Road. The application sought permission to convert the existing flat into three flats: two on the first floor and one in the converted loft space – the scheme sought other alterations including balconies, dormers and roof lights. Attention was drawn to the additional representations and the main considerations related to principle of the use, the standard of the proposed accommodation, the impact, traffic and sustainability considerations.

(3)             The application was seeking the sub-division of the unit, and the applicant had provided information in the form of estate agents’ details, photographs and layouts to demonstrate that the property had four bedrooms as originally built. Although the downstairs neighbours had refuted this and submitted some additional estate agents’ details to counter this case the Local Planning Authority was satisfied that this was not the case on the balance of all the evidence provided. As two of the proposed units would be two bedroom properties this was in compliance with policy. The proposed alterations were similar to those undertaken at No. 66 and whilst these works had been completed before the adoption of SPD 12 the relevant guidance on roof alterations in relation to both applications had been the same at this time. The guidance required the dormer to align, but given the size and scale they were considered acceptable. It was noted that the bedroom on the second floor would have some loss of space due to the roof slopes, but this was not considered sufficient reason to warrant refusal. Transport and sustainability matters were considered acceptable, and the application was recommendation for approval for the reasons set out in the report.

Questions for Officers

(4)             In response to Councillor Barradell it was explained that the relevant section of policy confirmed that the number of bedrooms should be considered by the standard of when the building was originally constructed.

(5)             In response to Councillor Miller it was clarified that there was currently no access to the loft space, and therefore, this area would not have been used in the calculation of floor space, only the space on the first floor. Following a further query it was confirmed by the Senior Solicitor, Hilary, Woodward, that as far as she was aware there was no legal definition or defined size of a bedroom.

(6)             In response to queries from Councillor C. Theobald it was confirmed that sound-proofing fell outside the remit of the Committee and would be captured through Building Control legislation. In relation to the previous refusal of the scheme this had been due to the inaccuracy of the plans; the size of the bedrooms in the proposed second floor flat were also confirmed.

(7)             Councillor C. Theobald asked further questions about soundproofing, and the Senior Solicitor, Hilary Woodward, highlighted the advice received from the Building Control section that the works must achieve Building Control standards (these less onerous than for a new build), a series of sound tests would be undertaken before any sign-off and these results must be presented to the Authority for Building Control records. In response to a further point in relation to soundproofing from Councillor Miller the Planning & Building Control Applications Manager explained that she had taken advice from the Building Control Manager that standards for soundproofing needed to be achieved.

(8)             In response to Councillor Inkpin-Leissner it was explained the details from the estate agent were one of a number of pieces of evidence that had been submitted by the applicant; the Case Officer had also undertaken a site visit and was satisfied that the building was four bedrooms as originally built – there was also history of a similar layout at No. 66.

(9)             In response to Councillor Barradell it was confirmed that Officers were of the view that the impact on the amenity of the neighbouring property downstairs was not so significant to warrant refusal. In response to a further query the Planning Manager clarified the policy hurdles that needed to be overcome in this type of conversion.

(10)          Councillor Inkpin-Leissner asked specific questions in relation to the construction period; in response Offices clarified that these were not material consideration on a scheme of this size. The Chair clarified that such issues were controlled through Environmental Health legislation which had to power to operate much more reactively; breaches of notices served by Environment Health would be a criminal offence.

(11)          In response to Councillor Gilbey it was explained that a conversion would not be expected to meet the same level for lifetime homes standards as new builds; where this would be partially met appropriate conditions would be attached.

(12)          In response to Councillor Miller it was confirmed that there was no off-street parking associated with the property; the units on the lower ground floor were in use as workshops.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(13)          Councillor Wares noted he was satisfied that the property was originally built with four bedrooms; in relation to the concerns expressed about soundproofing he was satisfied with the assurance received from Officers, and he would support the Officer recommendation.

(14)          Councillor C. Theobald felt the application was borderline acceptable, and she acknowledged to amenity concerns for the downstairs neighbour. On balance she would support the Officer recommendation.

(15)          Councillor Inkpin-Leissner noted that the fourth bedroom could have been a nursery and Officers confirmed that a nursery would be classed as a bedroom..

(16)          Councillor Miller stated he was of the view that the property had originally been built with four bedrooms; whilst he had concerns in relation to soundproofing he acknowledged there was an appropriate route to deal with any issues through Environment Protection. He went on to add that the proposed alterations would improve the building and there was a need for more homes in the city.

(17)          Councillor Mac Cafferty acknowledged the concerns of neighbours; however, he was confident that there was appropriate legislation to protect residents and amenity – for these reasons he would support the Officer recommendation.

(18)          In response to a query from Councillor Barradell Officers confirmed the roof lights on the front of the property were in compliance with policy. Councillor Barradell went on to acknowledge that similar alterations had been undertaken next door, and her only reservation related to the property being the only one on the street with roof lights at the front.

(19)          Councillor Littman acknowledged the concerns expressed by the downstairs neighbour, but he felt there were no planning grounds to refuse the application.

(20)          Councillor Inkpin-Leissner noted he would support the Officer recommendation.

(21)          The Chair stated on balance she felt there was sufficient evidence to prove the property had originally been built with four bedrooms; she felt the amenity concerned could be addressed by other legislation to protect this.

(22)          A vote was taken and the Officer recommendation that Planning permission be granted was unanimously carried.

6.2         RESOLVED: That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in section 11 and the policies and guidance in section 7 and resolves to GRANT planning permission subjection to the Conditions and Informatives set out in section 11.