Agenda item - BH2014/02331, 59 Hill Drive, Hove - Full Planning

Erection of detached single storey residential dwelling to rear incorporating landscaping and access.

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Ward Affected; Hove Park

            Erection of detached single storey residential dwelling to rear incorporating landscaping and access.

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

(2)          The Planning Manager, Applications, Nicola Hurley, introduced the report by reference to site plans, photographs and elevation drawings. Planning permission was sought for the erection of a detached single-storey two bedroom dwelling house within the rear garden of no. 59. The building would comprise reclaimed face brickwork and heat treated timber cladding to the external elevations with the flat roof form accommodating a sedum roof with photovoltaic solar panels. A new pedestrian access to the dwelling house had also been incorporated with a pathway sited along the northern boundary of the site (adjacent with no. 61 Hill Drive). There would be no vehicular access to the proposed dwelling-house and no alterations were proposed to the existing frontage building. It was explained that a number of amendments had been made to the originally submitted scheme and the differences between the two were highlighted.

(3)          The main considerations in determining this application related to the suitability of the site to accommodate an additional dwelling house and the subsequent impact on visual amenity, neighbouring amenity, standard of accommodation and transport and sustainability issues. It was considered that development would provide an additional residential unit and make efficient and effective use of land within the built up area boundary without significant detriment to the prevailing character and appearance of the site and wider surrounding area. The development would provide a good standard of accommodation for future occupants and would not result in significant harm to neighbouring amenity or highway safety. It was therefore recommended that planning permission be granted.

            Public Speakers and Questions

(4)          Mr Stevenson spoke as a neighbouring objector setting out his objections to the proposed scheme. Mr Stevenson explained that he had two major issues and concerns relating to the potential for increased noise and vehicular activity arising from the proposal. If parking there was parking overspill from the dedicated area in front of the existing property it could create additional pressure on parking in Hill Drive. Mr Stevenson also had concerns about the impact of the pedestrian access way which would be located 2m away from his habitable rooms.

(5)          Councillor Bennett spoke in her capacity as a Local Ward Councillor. In her view this application was essentially the same as the previous one save that there was now no vehicular access. Hill Drive was narrow and very steep and the application site was located on a bend and could result in vehicles being parked on a dangerous bend. The site was not suitable for subdivision and unlike recent development in the vicinity this scheme would not be in keeping with the prevailing street scene.

(6)          Mr Parsons spoke on behalf of the applicants in support of their application. This scheme had been devised following consideration of a number of options and would provide accommodation for use by family members which was self contained within the scheme which had a larger garden plot than others in Hill Drive. An earlier scheme had been withdrawn and this scheme had been amended in order to address objections and concerns of neighbours and would be well screened to avoid overlooking.

              Questions of Officers

(7)          Councillor Robins sought confirmation regarding the 2006 scheme which had been referred to. It was explained that had been for a two storey building with a larger footprint.

(8)          Councillor Inkpin-Leissner enquired whether parking for both properties could be accommodated on site and it was confirmed that four vehicles could be accommodated on the driveway in front of the existing building.

(9)          Councillor Ware asked whether if once subdivided ownership of the rear property were to change in the future the application would need to come back to Committee and it was confirmed that it would not.

(10)       Councillor Janio expressed concern that if the rear property was sold in future the ability to park in front of the existing building at the front of the site could be lost. Councillor Miller expressed the same concerns as did Councillor Morris.

(11)       The Legal Adviser to the Committee, Hilary Woodward, explained that if planning permission was granted there would be two separate units on site, either or both of which could be sold separately. This was not a planning consideration and notwithstanding that parking would be provided on site, the occupants of either property could park on-street as could the occupants of any properties in Hill Drive.

              Debate and Decision Making Process

(12)       Councillor Mac Cafferty stated that the issue of whether or not family members would occupy the rear property was not a planning consideration, he considered that the principle of the development was acceptable.

(13)       Councillor Littman considered that the quality of amenity for future occupiers and the proximity of the pedestrian walkway to the neighbouring property needed to be borne in mind.

(14)       Councillor Gilbey sought details of the treatment of the pedestrian access. In answer to questions by the Chair, Councillor Cattell, asked for details of the proposed boundary treatments and was informed these had yet to be finalised. Councillor Inkpin-Leissner asked whether a condition could be added to ensure that any fencing or other treatment between the two properties could be of sufficient height (2m) to protect the amenity of both properties.

(15)       Councillor Inkpin-Leissner had some concerns that the property could be used as a “party” house, but it was confirmed that there were no indications that would be the case.

(16)       Councillor Miller had concerns regarding the impact that the proposals would have on the amenity of both properties

(17)       Councillor Wares stated that he was in agreement with Councillor Mac Cafferty that it was the principle of the development which needed to be determined. The scheme needed to be considered acceptable as an independent unit irrespective of its future use by family members or otherwise of those occupying the existing property. He did not consider the scheme was acceptable considering that the two properties would be in too close proximity to each other and would have a detrimental impact on each other.

(18)     A vote was taken and the 11 members present at that meeting voted by 7 to 1 with 3 abstentions that planning permission be granted.

94.6       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 to the Conditions and Informatives set out in section 11.

              The following words to be added into condition 9b:

              “to a height of 2m.”

              Note: Having declared an interest in the above application once she had spoken in her capacity as a Local Ward Councillor, Councillor Bennett withdrew from the meeting and took no part in the discussion or voting thereon.