Agenda item - BH2015/00914,17 Marmion Road, Hove - Full Planning

Demolition of existing building and erection of 5no three/four bedroom dwelling houses.

RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

Ward Affected: Wish

Demolition of existing building and erection of 5 three/four bedroom dwelling-houses.

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

(2)          The Planning Officer, Jason Hawkes, introduced the report by reference to site plans, photographs elevational drawings and floor plans. Planning permission was sought for the demolition of the existing YMCA building and the construction of five dwelling-houses which would form a terrace of three-storey houses of modern design with a part brick and part rendered finish. Each dwelling would include three/four bedrooms, a front and rear garden and sedum roof. Amendments received during the course of the application were also detailed as were further representations received which were set out in the “Late Representations List”. The determining issues in respect of this application were whether the proposal justified the loss of the existing community use, whether the proposal was of an appropriate design in the context of the surrounding area, whether the proposal would have a detrimental impact on neighbouring amenity, the standard of accommodation, highway considerations and sustainability.

(3)          It was considered that the loss of the existing community use had been justified given the evidence put forward by the YMCA. This included the relocation of the main use of the building for educational purposes, the cost of maintaining the building and the lack of interest in continuing the community use by an outside user. The development was also considered to be of an appropriate height, scale, bulk and design and would fit in with the character of the area. The development would not cause significant harm to neighbouring amenity by way of loss of light, privacy or outlook, or increased overshadowing, noise or disturbance and was also appropriate in terms of highway safety and sustainability, approval was therefore recommended.

            Public Speakers and Questions

(4)          Councillor Nemeth spoke in his capacity as a Local Ward Councillor setting out his observations in respect of the scheme. Whilst not objecting per–se, he considered that information provided initially by the applicants in respect of the scheme had been poor. At the subsequent public meeting residents had expressed concern regarding loss of community facilities, e.g., after school clubs, which would occur as a result of demolition of the existing building, he considered that this should be revisited. He considered that the figures quoted as being required to repair and maintain the existing building were high and had not been tested.

(5)          Mr Wilson spoke on behalf of the applicants in support of their application. He explained that the existing building dating from the 1900’s and was no longer fit for purpose. Due to reductions in grant funding received and with continuing financial constraints the YMCA had needed to re-evaluate how its core provision to vulnerable young people in the city could be most effectively provided. The proposed scheme would secure the organisations on-going work with its core services being provided from its existing facilities in Blatchington Road, Hove and East Street in Brighton.

              Questions for Officers

(6)          Councillor Morris asked whether it would be possible for any community use to be re-provided at the site and it was confirmed that it would not.

(7)          Councillor Robins sought clarification regarding the nature of existing provision on site, whether and to what extent the gym club and other uses were community based. Councillor Gilbey enquired whether the community uses referred to were being provided currently and whether they were being provided by the YMCA itself or other providers. Mr Wilson explained that the after school club and other facilities referred to were being provided by the YMCA’s paid staff. It had been explained to those users that the services they had used could no longer be provided because the organisation had to target its provision to those in need of their core services. It was considered that those requiring these able to access them elsewhere.

(8)          Councillor Mac Cafferty enquired as to the distance between the proposed development and the nearest residential property.

(9)          Councillor Gilbey also referred to the distance between the proposed development and neighbouring dwellings enquiring as to the height of any boundary treatment in order to avoid any potential overlooking. It was explained that the boundary fencing would be of some 2.5m in height and that there would be limited/oblique overlooking.

(10)       In answer to further questions, the Planning and Building Control Applications Manager, Jeanette Walsh stated that the existing building was not designated as an Asset of Community Value.

            Debate and Decision Making Process

(11)       Councillor Wares stated that as he understood it, the financial drivers behind the application were irrelevant, the issue was whether or not sufficiently compelling case for departure from policy HO20 had been made.

(12)       Councillor Mac Cafferty concurred in that view considering that the scheme was acceptable. He was in agreement that the proposed part brick part render appearance of the buildings would be sympathetic to the neighbouring street scene where there was a mixture of building styles.

(13)       Councillor Morris welcomed the housing to be provided by the scheme. Whilst regretting that a community use could not be provided he understood that this would not be possible.

(14)       Councillor Littman considered that whilst it was unfortunate that the community use would be lost, that was outside the Committee’s remit and regrettably no interest had been shown by any outside user. He therefore supported the scheme

(15)       Councillor Janio stated that whilst he did not generally support car free developments in this instance he considered the scheme to be a good one, he was willing to support the officer recommendation.

(16)       Councillor Inkpin-Leissner stated that he considered the scheme was acceptable but was concerned to ensure that a good quality render finish was used. If unsuitable finishes were used they did not weather well and could detract from the appearance of a building. He noted that reference had been made to other residential buildings of a modern design in the area, in Stoneham Road and the former Gala Bingo Hall site which fronted onto Portland Road.

(17)       Councillor Miller stated that he liked the design of the development which he considered represented a good modern design and agreed that it was important for an appropriate render treatment to be used.

(18)       The Chair, Councillor Cattell concurred with the points made in relation to use of a rendered finish, stating that use of a sand and cement painted render treatment appeared to weather well and, requested that an informative to that effect be added to any planning permission granted. The Committee concurred in that view.

(19)       A vote was taken and members voted unanimously that planning permission be granted to include the informative set out below.

94.5       RESOLVED - That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in section 11 of the report and the policies and guidance in section 7 and resolves to GRANT planning permission subject tothe Conditions and Informatives set out in Section 11.

              Add Informative:

Details to be submitted in accordance with condition 8 shall include agreement of render to be constituted of painted sand and cement.