Agenda item - BH2014/03283, 54 Woodland Drive, Hove - Full Planning

Change of use from residential dwelling (C3) to day nursery (D1) including alterations to fenestration and construction of gable ends and two rear dormers to allow accommodation in the roof space.

RECMMENDATION – GRANT

Ward Affected: Hove Park

Change of use from residential dwelling (C3) to day nursery (D1)

including alterations to fenestration and construction of gable

ends and two rear dormers to allow accommodation in the roof

space.

(1)        The Planning Manager (Applications), Nicola Hurley, introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to photographs, plans and elevational drawings. It was explained that the application site related to a detached two-storey dwelling house located on the west side of Woodland Drive. The house was of traditional design with a cat slide roof to the front elevation. The house included a hardstanding area to the front for car parking. The site slopes up to the rear and the rear garden was split into different levels to reflect the topography of the site. The dwelling includes a conservatory to the rear. Woodland Drive also sloped up from south to north. To the rear of the garden is a woodland area known as the Three Cornered Copse. This is a Site of Nature Conservation Importance. The dwelling was adjacent to a pathway to the north which leads to the copse and was also opposite the junction with Shirley Drive which contained a parade of shops. The remainder of the surrounding area was predominately comprised of detached dwelling houses set in substantial grounds. The site was adjacent to the Woodland Drive Conservation Area to the north and west of the site.

(2)     The main issues to be considered in determination of the application were the acceptability of the proposed nursery in this location having regard to the existing use as a dwelling, the impact on neighbouring amenity, impact on the design of the host property and surrounding area (including the setting of the adjacent Conservation Area), impact on trees and traffic issues.

(3)     It was considered that the development would provide a day nursery capable of meeting the Council’s standards and would also retain a residential unit of an acceptable standard of accommodation within the premises. Subject to compliance with the suggested conditions, the day nursery use will not cause undue noise or disturbance for occupiers of adjoining properties. Likewise the proposed parking and access arrangements will not create a highway safety hazard. The proposal was also appropriate in respect of its design and would preserve the appearance of the host building and surrounding area. The scheme would not detrimentally affect the setting of the adjoining Woodland Drive Conservation Area, approval was therefore recommended.

Public Speakers and Questions

(4)          Mr Beardmore spoke on behalf of neighbouring residents setting out their objections to the proposed scheme. He stated that it would create a high level of noise nuisance, disturbance and disruption and represented an unneighbourly form of development. Parents dropping off and picking up their children at certain times of the day were likely to exceed the on-street parking available and could lead vehicles being parked on grass verges. A toddler swimming group previously located nearby had resulted in similar problems. Given the close proximity to the elevated section of the T junction nearby this would impede visibility and give rise to serious road safety issues.

(5)          Councillor Bennett spoke in her capacity as a Local Ward Councillor setting out her objections and those of her ward colleague, Councillor Brown. She stated that they did not believe that the application site situated as it was in a quiet residential street was a suitable location. Woodland Drive was also extremely busy particularly in the mornings and evenings when children would be arriving/going home, as it was a main route into Hove. Parking was always difficult and the lay by was located on the opposite side of the road. Due to the close proximity of the T junction there was no safe crossing place. Overall it was considered that the accommodation was too small for its proposed use, that the level of outside play space was insufficient and noise nuisance would result for near neighbours.

(6)          Mr Wood was in attendance accompanied by Ms Shahin, the applicant, to speak in support of her application. Ms Shahin was present in order to answer any questions in relation to her application. Mr Wood explained that that the proposal would provide a much needed nursery facility whilst also retaining a residential unit of an acceptable standard and preserve the appearance of the existing building. It was not considered that it would give rise to parking problems or create a highway safety hazard.

(7)          In answer to questions by Councillor Miller Ms Shahin explained the ratio of staff to children required was dependent on their ages. There would be between 7-10 staff on site at any time.

Questions for Officers

(8)          Councillor Littman asked in respect of any shortfall in provision, as in accordance with planning policy he understood that the loss of a dwelling house should be resisted unless a shortfall had been identified which made an exception to policy appropriate. It was explained that, although there was no shortfall in provision the Council’s Early Years Team had indicated their support for the proposal

(9)          Councillor Barradell sought confirmation regarding of the height of the fence to the front of the property and whether it was typical of the area.

(10)       Councillor Miller asked to view plans showing the proposed and existing side elevations, noting that provision of a gable as proposed would result in a large roof in relation to that of neighbouring dwellings. He also sought clarification regarding the level of parking available on and off-street. The Principal Transport Officer, Steven Shaw explained that it was anticipated that dropping off and picking up times were likely to be staggered, also that not all parents or staff would drive to the nursery. A bus route passed nearby and some parents and staff would arrive by public transport or on foot. A Travel Plan would be required as a condition of any permission granted.

(11)       Councillor Gilbey asked whether parking would be available on site associated with the staff flat which would be provided.

            Debate and Decision Making Process

(12)     Councillor Miller stated that he did not consider that a compelling case had been made for loss of the existing residential dwelling. He also considered that there would be a detrimental impact on parking in the area and that this also gave rise to highway safety concerns. Also, that the roof alterations would be out of keeping with the neighbouring street scene and would have a negative impact.

(13)     Councillor Littman concurred stating that as an exception to policy had not been demonstrated, there was no significant short fall in provision, a consistent approach should be maintained and existing policies upheld. On that basis the application should be refused.

(14)     The Chair, Councillor Cattell, stated that she shared concerns expressed regarding the suitability of the site, the level of traffic that would be generated and loss of a family home.

(15)     A vote was taken and on a vote of 9 to 3 planning permission was refused.

(16)     Councillor Miller proposed that the application be refused on the grounds set out below, this was seconded by Councillor Littman

(17)     A vote was taken and Councillors Cattell, the Chair, Gilbey, Barradell, Janio, Littman, Miller, Morris, A Norman and K Norman voted that planning permission be refused. Councillors Hamilton, Inkpin-Leissner and Mac Cafferty voted that planning permission be granted.

45.7       RESOLVED - That the Committee has taken into consideration with the reasons for the recommendation set out in section 11 of the report and the policies and guidance in section 7 but resolves to REFUSE planning permission for the reasons set out below:

(1) The Brighton and Hove Local Plan 2005 Policy HO26 exception to Policy HO8 does not apply as it has not been demonstrated that there is a significant shortage of the provision of nursery facilities in the vicinity. The loss of housing is not therefore justified.

(2) The location of the application site by virtue of its proximity to a busy T junction, and the lack of on-site parking spaces would have a detrimental impact on road safety contrary to Policies TR1, TR7 and TR12 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan 2005; and

(3) The roof alterations by reason of their scale and design would fail to respect the character of the property and the immediate vicinity contrary to Policy QD14 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan 2005 and SPD 12: Design Guide for Alterations and Alterations.