Agenda item - BH2015/02562 - 107 Boundary Road, Hove - Full Planning

Demolition of existing house and erection of four storey building to form 7no two bedroom flats (C3) with associated parking.

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE

Demolition of existing house and erection of four storey building to form 7no two bedroom flats (C3) with associated parking.

(1)             The Planning Manager, Major Applications (Paul Vidler) introduced the application and gave a presentation with reference to plans, photographs and elevational drawings; reference was also made to information contained in the late list. He also noted that the applicant had highlighted inaccuracies in the report and updated the Committee with the correct size of the disabled bay; Officers did not consider any of the other points raised to be matters of inaccuracy. The application sought permission for the demolition of the existing building and the construction of a four-storey block of flats. In 2008 permission was granted at appeal for a block of flats and this was renewed in 2012; an application was refused in June this year for a four storey block of flats; the scheme was refused due to the adverse impact of the neighbouring properties from the car park at the rear as well as the scale and bulk. The main differences in this application were the reduction in height of the outer gable end features, and repositioning of the rear car-parking. Whilst Officers were of the view the car-parking no longer warranted a reason for refusal, following assessment by Officers in Environmental Health, the reason for refusal in relation to the scale and bulk remained. The application was recommended for refusal for the reasons set out in the report.

Speaker(s) and Questions

(2)             Fred Dyer spoke against the scheme in his capacity as a local resident; he stated that he had concern in relation to fumes from the rear car park which would be directly under the window of his neighbouring property.

(3)             John Coleman spoke in support of the scheme as the architect; he stated that the scheme was reworked and was acceptable for the street scene in Boundary Road as the existing building was of little architectural merit. The current application would provide step free access and the objections to the design were based on the perceived bulk of the building as the footprint was identical to the previously approved scheme – there were properties in the immediate vicinity that were also bulky. The proposal would sit comfortable in the street scene; the scheme constituted a net gain of 6 dwellings and a disabled car parking space. The scheme was supported by one of the local Ward Councillors; as well backed up, in policy terms, by the NPPF.

(4)             In response to Councillor Inkpin-Leissner the speaker confirmed that the building had been raised up so flat access could be gained to the front door.

(5)             In response to Councillor Miller the speaker confirmed that the current scheme was for 7 two-bedrooms flats.

Questions for Officers

(6)             It was confirmed for Councillor Hamilton that there was ramped access to the front door.

(7)             It was confirmed for Councillor Gilbey that there was no longer an objection from Environmental Health.

(8)             In response to Councillor O’Quinn it was confirmed that each flat had its own private amenity space, as well as a communal garden.

(9)             It was confirmed for Councillor Inkpin-Leissner that there was one parking space to the rear of the proposal.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(10)          Councillor Inkpin-Leissner stated that the scheme proposed too much on the site; he felt the agreed 2008 scheme was more appropriate.

(11)          Councillor Hamilton noted there were already traffic problems at the bottom of the road and the additional traffic generated by the scheme would add to this; he stated he would support the Officer recommendation.

(12)          A vote was taken and the Officer recommendation that permission be refused was carried unanimously.

106.6    RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration the recommendation and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in section 11 and resolves to REFUSE permission for the reasons set out below:

              Reasons for Refusal

i.          The proposed development by virtue of its scale, bulk and design would result in an incongruous development that would appear overly dominant within the context of the immediate Boundary Road street scene and would detract significantly from the character and appearance of the site and the wider surrounding area. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies QD1, QD2, and QD3 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

Informatives:

ii.         In accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy SS1 of the Brighton & Hove City Plan Part One (submission document) the approach to making a decision on this planning application has been to apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development. The Local Planning Authority seeks to approve planning applications which are for sustainable development where possible.