Agenda item - BH2015/01237 - Amber Court, 38 Salisbury Road, Hove - Full Planning

Creation of additional floor at fourth floor level to form 2no two bedroom flats with terraces to rear.

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

              Creation of additional floor at fourth floor level to form 2no two bedroom flats with terraces to the rear.

(1)          The Planning Manager, Applications, Nicola Hurley, introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to plans and elevational drawings, detailing the proposals, including floor plans and photographs detailing the existing elevations and showing views across the site from the rear and from other perspectives.

(2)          It was explained that the application related to a flat-roofed purpose built three-storey block of 12 flats on the eastern side of Salisbury Road, with parking at basement level to the rear for up to 12 vehicles. The parking spaces to rear (excluding the garage spaces) and front were all used for commercial purposes (privately owned pay and display spaces). The building featured extensive brickwork with UPVC windows and includes a small front extension with a stepped entrance and dated from the 1960’s. The eastern side of Salisbury Road was predominantly of relatively recent flatted development. The western side of Salisbury Road was predominately historic semi-detached houses (some converted in to flats) which lay within the Willett Estate Conservation Area. The application site itself was not within a Conservation Area. Approval planning permission had been given for an identical scheme in 2011 and an updated sunlight and daylight study had accompanied the current application.

(3)          The main issues to be considered in determining the application were the impact of the additional storey on the character and appearance of the building and surrounding area including the adjacent Conservation Area and residential amenity for occupiers of adjoining properties; the standard of accommodation created by the development; and transport and sustainability issues. It was considered that the development would provide two additional residential units and would make efficient and effective use of land within the built up area boundary without 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; approval was therefore recommended.

              Public Speakers and Questions

(4)          Mr Tanner spoke on behalf of neighbouring residents setting out their objections to the scheme. His property bordered the site and photographs were shown indicating views from his property into the site. As proposed these additional units would have a detrimental impact as use of the balconies would result in overlooking of all neighbouring properties and a resulting loss of privacy and amenity. If permission was granted he requesting that the scheme be amended to prevent use of the balconies.

(5)          Mr Boys spoke on behalf of the applicants in support of their scheme. He explained that this application was identical to that for which planning permission had been given in 2011. There had been no changes to planning policy and the scheme had addressed all relevant issues at that time. The only changes were that updated sunlight and had daylight surveys had been submitted.

              Questions for Officers

(6)          Councillor Barradell considered that the Committees hands were tied in consequence of the earlier decision, requesting whether it would be possible to restrict use of the balconies by condition. Also regarding whether there would be access/overlooking from balconies of the development onto the “rectangular” garden area to the rear. This was not thought to be the case although that could not be confirmed. With regard to privacy it was confirmed that as previously a screen would be installed to the rear of the terrace to prevent overlooking and loss of privacy to the properties at the rear. The screen was considered to be of a sufficient height and to represent an acceptable approach in that locality. The proposed terraces at the rear of the building were also considered to be located at a sufficient distance to prevent significant noise and disturbance

(7)          Councillor Mac Cafferty raised the same issue enquiring whether addition of a condition relating to use of the balconies could be considered reasonable. The Legal Adviser to the Committee, Hilary Woodward confirmed that the applicant could appeal against any additional conditions and it needed to be borne in mind that this application would meet all of the conditions required by the original 2011 permission. There had been no material change in planning policy relating to this site since that time.

(8)          Councillor Morris sought confirmation that planning permission was being sought now because the previous permission had expired and it was confirmed that was the case.

              Debate and Decision Making Process

(9)          Councillor Wares referred to the recent Inspector’s decision in relation to a similar arrangement of rear terraces to the top floor of 39 Salisbury Road, which in refusing that application had acknowledged that that site and the application site were not directly comparable in terms of their visual impact. He asked whether this had influenced the officer recommendation and whether the previous decision had been taken by the Committee. It was confirmed that refusal to allow planning permission for balconies on 39 Salisbury Road was not considered to carry significant weight in the assessment of balconies on the application site. The previous decision had been taken by the Committee.

(10)       Councillor Miller stated that in view of the distances involved he considered that where the level of overlooking would be greatest this would be addressed by the provision of the privacy screen.

(9)          Councillor C Theobald stated that she had concerns that there could be a detrimental impact on the neighbouring properties to either side of the application site.

(11)       The Planning and Building Control Applications Manager, Jeanette Walsh, stated that it was important to acknowledge that the scheme was identical to that for which permission had been granted previously. Whilst some increased sense of enclosure would result by the additional storey to Amber Court it was not considered sufficient to warrant refusal, this relationship had been considered appropriate in the previous applications.

(12)       A vote was taken and on a vote of 8 to 4 Members voted that planning permission be granted.

118.1    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.