Agenda item - BH2014/03742 - Hove Business Centre, Fonthill Road, Hove - Full Planning

Creation of 4no one bedroom flats, 4no two bedroom flats and 1no three bedroom flat on existing flat roof incorporating revised access and associated works.

RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

                    Creation of 4no one bedroom flats, 4no two bedroom flats and 1no three bedroom flat on existing flat roof incorporating revised access and associated works.

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

(2)          The Principal Planning Officer, Adrian Smith, introduced the scheme and gave a presentation by reference to plans, floorplans and elevational drawings. The application sought permission for the addition of nine residential flats at roof level accessed via an internal walkway along the rear of the roof. The additional floor would be metal/zinc clad with balconies to the south side.

(3)          The main considerations in the determination of this application related to the principle of adding an additional floor comprising residential flats to the locally listed building, its impact on the appearance of the building and the setting of the adjacent Hove Station Conservation Area, its impact on neighbouring amenity, the standard of accommodation to be provided, and sustainability and transport issues. Also relevant was the potential impact of the residential accommodation on the existing business units within the building. At present, there was no agreed up-to-date housing provision target for the city against which to assess the five year housing land supply position. Until the City Plan Part 1 was adopted, with an agreed housing provision target, appeal Inspectors were likely to use the city’s full objectively assessed need (OAN) for housing to 2030 (estimated to be 30,120 units) as the basis for the five year supply position.

(4)          On balance, the impact of the proposed additional storey on the appearance of this non-designated heritage asset was considered acceptable having regard to the nature of the significance of the building and the public benefits of providing additional housing units given the absence of a five year housing supply. Whilst the additional storey would impact on the amenities of residents to the rear along Newtown Road, the degree of loss of daylight and sunlight would not be sufficiently significant to warrant the refusal of permission. Subject to conditions the amenities of future occupiers would be sufficiently protected from existing activities in the building. Accordingly the development complied with development plan policies and minded to grant approval was therefore recommended.

              Public Speakers and Questions

(3)          Mr Miller and Mr Kitcat spoke in their capacity as a neighbouring resident and business occupier of the building respectively setting out their objections to the scheme.

(4)          Mr Miller spoke on behalf of neighbouring residents and referred to the degree of additional noise and overlooking which would result. Mr KitKat spoke in his capacity as a business user of the building. He and other objectors questioned the credibility of the lighting report. The building was in a very poor condition of repair and it was questionable whether structurally it could carry the nine housing units proposed. The existing dance studio use did not sit well with the existing business uses and the additional housing units would be detrimental to all users of the building, including for those who would eventually occupy the flats. The scale of works which would need to be undertaken would be disruptive to the business users of the building who would have to move out for their duration. Overall, the impact of these works outweighed any benefits and the Committee were invited to refuse this application.

(5)          Councillor O’Quinn spoke in her capacity as a Local Ward Councillor setting out her objections to the proposals. Councillor O’Quinn stated that the building was iconic example from its period and worthy of listing. She had been surprised to find that the building was not in fact listed and many she had spoken to had been under the mistaken impression that it was. In her view further consideration of the application should be deferred in order to enable that option to be actively pursued.

(6)          Mr McMillan spoke on behalf of the applicants in support of their application. He stated that the applicants had sought to address objections raised which had included concerns regarding loss of privacy and light. The roof extension would be well set back and would be subservient to the main building and it was considered that there had been a lot of misinformation about the scheme which would effect significant improvements to the building.

            Questions for Officers

(7)          The Chair, Councillor Cattell, referred to the submitted light survey, seeking confirmation regarding the submitted data, as it was her understanding that light to neighbouring properties was compromised by the existing building, but that the proposed development would not give rise to increased detriment.

(8)          Councillor Barradell sought clarification regarding the noise survey carried out expressing surprise regarding the level of noise penetration from the dance school and also querying that the business occupiers would need to move for the duration of the work. A number of the existing windows had been replaced over time and replacement of others was intended as part of this scheme. The windows of the flats would be aligned with those of the floor below in order to ensure that the continuity of the building line was respected.

(9)          The Chair, Councillor Cattell, stated that she had some concerns regarding the potential for noise penetration, particularly in relation to the operation of the dance school. It was explained that only 10 noise complaints had been received since 2001, any complaints received would be investigated and could also be taken up with the dance school in the first instance.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(10)       Councillor Morris stated that he queried whether the level of consultation and liaison with residents had been adequate. It was explained that whilst this was encouraged it was not a material planning consideration and grant of permission could not be dependent on that.

(11)       Councillor Mac Cafferty referred to the consultation which had been undertaken by the applicants, noting that no reference had been made to discussion with the business users seeking confirmation that these had taken place and it was confirmed that they had.

(12)       Councillor Mac Cafferty stated that although spot listing could have been requested, it had not been. It was confirmed that this could be applied for by any individual, it did not need to be a Committee decision.

(13)       Councillor Littman stated that for him the benefits from the scheme did not outweigh the harm. He considered that the development at rooftop level would have a negative impact on residents in New Town Road and for that reason he did not feel he could support this scheme.

(14)       Councillor Gilbey stated that she had grave concerns in respect of the close proximity of the development to neighbouring residential dwellings considering that it could have a negative impact.

(15)       Councillor Inkpin-Leissner stated that he could not support the officer recommendation as in his view the proposed form of development would be detrimental to the host building. He was of the view that listing should be applied for and would have supported that option.

(16)       Councillor Barradell stated that she supported the scheme considering that the external appearance of the building would be unaltered and that it would enhance rather than detract from it.

(17)       Councillor Miller agreed stating that he considered that as the roof line of the development would be set back it was acceptable and would not have a detrimental impact. Overall, it would tidy up the existing building.

(18)       Councillor C Theobald stated that given the close proximity to Hove Station, train noise could give rise to as much noise in the vicinity as from uses within the building, noting the very small number of noise complaints received. Given the set back of the upper storey proposed, she did not consider that the proposed development would be too prominent in the street scene. She did not consider that it would be necessary for business users to move out during the works and supported the officer recommendation.

(19)       Councillor Wares concurred in that view stating that he considered the scheme to be acceptable and supported the officer recommendation.

(20)       A vote was taken and on a vote of 7 to 5 Members voted that minded to grant planning permission be given.

118.5    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 be MINDED TO GRANT planning permission subject to a S106 agreement and the Conditions and Informatives set out in section 11.Condition 8 to be amended to add the words “businesses and” after the word residents in condition 8.