Agenda item - BH2015/04606 - Rayford House, School Road, Hove - Full Planning Permission

Erection of side extension and creation of additional floor to create 9no. residential units with associated parking and re-cladding

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE

Erection of side extension and creation of additional floor to create 9no. residential units with associated parking and re-cladding.

1)               The Planning Manager (Applications) gave a presentation by reference to plans, photographs and elevational drawings. The application site was located in a predominately residential area consisting of terrace and semi-detached properties. Of particular relevance to the application was a consent for an additional floor of office accommodation granted permission the previous year following the agreement of the s106 from a minded to grant decision in 2002. This application sought permission for an additional roof level and an extension to create none flats. The car parking spaces on the site would be reconfigured with a total of 67 – which would be a reduction of 4 from the current total.

2)               The proposed materials were clarified and there would be a green wall on the eastern elevation. A single letter of objection had been received, and there was one letter of support from one of the local Ward Councillors – Councillor Nemeth. The application was recommended for refusal in relation to the design; the extension would relate poorly to the existing building, would be overly dominant and overbearing and not fit in with the surrounding area. It was considered that there was no overall cohesion to the scheme – with the new elements having a vertical emphasis and different fenestration style. The second reason for refusal related to the failure of the applicant to agree to meet the travel impact on site through a s106 agreement; however, since the publication of the agenda they had agreed to this and the second reason for refusal was withdrawn. The application was recommended for refusal for the reason set out in the report.

Public Speaker(s) and Questions

3)               Mr Lap Chan spoke in support of the scheme in his capacity as the agent. He stated that there was no objection from immediate neighbours and highlighted the need for housing in the city; furthermore efficient use of sites was a pressing issue for the Council. The NPPF gave a presumption in favour of approval of sustainable development and the location was considered highly sustainable. Similar buildings and developments close by were highlighted – namely the Gala Bingo building and the Maynard’s Sweet Factory. He noted that the Case Officer had placed weight on an appeal decision at a nearby site, but he was of the view this argument did not apply to this site. The application would seek to add to the regeneration of the area and provide much needed residential accommodation.

4)               In response to Councillor Hamilton the speaker confirmed that all of the office space was currently in use; aside from one vacant floor.

Questions for Officers

5)               In response to Councillor Mac Cafferty it was explained that there was no loss of any of the existing commercial space on the site. It was also clarified that, whilst a tall building study had been submitted, the scheme was still not acceptable for the design, scale and detail reasons.

6)               In response to Councillor Miller visuals were shown highlighting the difference between the existing and proposed finish of the building.

7)               In response to Councillor C. Theobald it was clarified that matters in relation to materials, sound proofing and amenity screening would all be secured through condition were the application recommended for approval. Following a further query from Councillor Barradell it was confirmed this would be the same with the render finish.

8)               In response to Councillor Wares an elevational of the 2002 application permission was shown to the Committee.

9)               In response to Councillor Morris it was confirmed that the application sought to add additional design features to the façade of the existing building.

10)            In response to Councillor Barradell it was confirmed that no pre-application advice had been sought by the applicant.

11)            It was clarified for Councillor Gilbey that the whole frontage would not be visible from the view up School Road.

Debate and Decision Making Process

12)            Councillor Miller stated that the design was acceptable and for this reason he would not support the Officer recommendation.

13)            Councillor Littman stated that the existing building was not particularly attractive and the scheme was an attempt to characterise the building and break up the outline. He noted the need for housing in the city and felt the scheme was not harmful to the area; for these reasons he would not support the Officer recommendation.

14)            Councillor Barradell noted that the area was generally not of any design merit, but she felt the scheme was ‘too busy’ and would not enhance the area. She also expressed concern that the design on this site could set a precedent for other regeneration schemes in the vicinity, and with this in mind it was important this scheme achieve the right standard. However, she noted that she was aware of the pressing need for housing in the city.

15)            Councillor Hamilton highlighted the amount of vacant office space in Portslade as well as the need for housing in the city; for these reasons he would not support the Officer recommendation.

16)            Councillor C. Theobald noted that the existing building was unattractive, and the scheme sought to improve what was currently on the site; she felt the addition was interesting though she had reservations about the timber cladding. She stated she would not support the Officer recommendation.

17)            Councillor Wares stated that the proposal was an improvement on both the existing building and the 2002 application permission; he noted the lack of strong objection from local residents and stated that for these reasons he would not support the Officer recommendation.

18)            Councillor Gilbey stated that the scheme was an improvement on the existing building and for this reason she would not support the Officer recommendation.

19)            Councillor Morris stated his view that the vertical and horizontal elements of the design did not complement each other, but he felt this could be easily resolved.

20)            Councillor Mac Cafferty stated that he agreed with the views put forward by Councillor Barradell, and he would support the Officer recommendation on the grounds that a more coherent scheme could come forward. He stated that if the Committee were minded to grant permission then appropriate conditions should be put in place to protect resident amenity.

21)            Councillor Cattell stated that she agreed with the principle of the development, but felt a more simple design could be achieved on the site.

22)            A vote was taken of the eleven Members present and the Officer recommendation that planning permission be refused was not carried on a vote of 4 in support and 7 against. Reasons were proposed for a new recommendation, that the scheme be minded to grant subject to a s106 agreement and the delegation of the conditions and informatives to the Planning & Building Control Applications Manager in consultation with the Chair, Deputy Chair and Group Spokespersons, by Councillor Littman and these were seconded by Councillor C. Theobald. A recorded was then taken and Councillors: Gilbey, C. Theobald, Bennett, Hamilton, Littman, Miller and Wares voted that minded to grant permission be granted and Councillor: Cattell, Mac Cafferty, Barradell and Morris voted that permission not be granted.

154.1    RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken has taken into account the Officer recommendation but resolves, for the reason set out below, to be MINDED TO GRANT permission subject to a s106 agreement, conditions, including the materials condition, and informatives to be agreed by the Planning & Building Control Applications Manager in consultation with the Chair, Deputy Chair and Group Spokespersons:

              Reason

i)       The proposed development is considered acceptable in view of the need for housing and in terms of its form, scale and design.

Informative 

i)       The agreement of materials to be agreed with the Chair, Deputy Chair and Group Spokespersons.