Agenda item - BH2016/05893 - Medina House, 9 Kings Esplanade, Hove - Full Planning

Demolition of existing building and erection of a single residential dwelling (C3) with associated hard and soft landscaping.

RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

Demolition of existing building and erection of a single residential dwelling (C3) with associated hard and soft landscaping.

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

Officer Presentation

2)               The Principal Planning Officer introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to photographs, plans and elevational drawings; attention was also drawn to matters on the Late List and a further letter of support that had not raised any new material planning considerations. The application site related to Medina House, which formed the remaining part of the wider baths complex. The building was locally listed, and had been vacant since 1993; the women’s pool had been demolished in 2003. The proposal was for the demolition of the existing building and the construction of a single residential property. There had been a series of previous refusals at this site largely relating to the loss of the building; however, due to the existing state of the building and the work required to restore it, demolition and redevelopment was considered a more realistic option.

3)               Part of the proposed development had been influenced by the original building, in particular retaining features such as the window forms and Dutch gables, to give a link to the history of the site. The ridge of the building would be 2.2 metres higher than the existing Medina House; this was partly to accommodate a raised ground floor to mitigate water egress. The palette would be white bricks, grey timber, timber framed windows, dark clay roof tiles and the retention of the original swimming pool tiles where possible.

4)               It was noted that the previous refused scheme had proposed a similar increase in height; however, the height had not formed one of the reasons for refusal. Daylight and sunlight assessments had been submitted. It was noted that the advice given in the BRE Guide was not mandatory and there were only a small percentage of affected windows that would be below the recommended daylight and sunlight levels. There had been some concern with the proposed materials; however, this was outweighed by the benefits of bringing the site back into use with links to the history of the former building. The application was recommended to be minded to grant for the reasons set out in the report.

Public Speaker(s) and Questions

5)               Neil Williams spoke in objection to the application in his capacity as a local resident. He stated his objection letter to the Case Officer had made reference to the height of the building creating an unneighbourly form, and the changes proposed in the height were only for cosmetic purposes. Some of the Committee had visited his property on the site visit and seen the extent of the impact that the development would have on his property. The height would be in breach of local policy which sought to protect neighbour amenity. The planning brief for the site was published to enshrine good practice and it was felt that this was being largely ignored through the Officer recommendation. Further revisions to the scheme could be made, in particular to reduce the scale of the proposed new building and the number of rooms.

6)               The Architect, Keb Garavito Bruhn, spoke in support of the application and stated that he had been appointed over a year ago to assist in redeveloping the site as a single family home. Initially the scheme had tried to retain the original structure; however, the building had fallen into disrepair – an alternative proposal had been put forward, but the scheme would try to save as many of the original tiles as possible. The new building retained the form and features of the original Medina House. The increased height in the building allowed the scheme to work as a residential, rather than civic, building and create a privacy buffer as well as protecting against flood risk. The site also included a wing to the east which would be set in from the boundary.

7)               The Architect explained, in response to Mr Gowans, that the original building had been red brick, but this material have proven not fit for purpose within 20 years of the original construction. Since then the context had changed significantly and the white brick had been chosen to reference the nearby buildings in the conservation area.

8)               The Architect explained, in response to Councillor Miller, the poor state of the building, and noted there was little left of the original building that could not be preserved. The reasons to raise the building had related to flooding and to create a buffer for privacy.

9)               The Architect explained, in response to Councillor Russell-Moyle that the new wing had been included when it was clear the original could not be retained.

Questions for Officers

10)            In response to Councillor Miller it was explained that Officers were of the view that retention of the original building would require such extensive works and addition of new materials that the building would lose its historic integrity. It was also noted that the LPA were satisfied with the information received from the applicant and were of the view that demolition was the appropriate course of action.

11)            The Principal Planning Officer Conservation confirmed that it was her view the evidence pointed to the building originally being finished in exposed red brick.

12)            In response to Councillor Russell-Moyle it was explained that Officers were of the view that the evidence submitted by the applicant outweighed the retention of the original building, and any renovation would need to be so invasive that the original historic fabric would be permanently undermined. By way of further clarification the Senior Solicitor noted that the development plan was a material planning consideration and should be followed unless material  planning considerations indicated otherwise and in this instance planning officers’ opinion that retention and repair would result in a different building to that existing was a material planning consideration.

13)            In response to Councillor Mac Cafferty the following was explained. The rear windows were high level and would have obscure glazing. A landscaping scheme would have to be submitted, and this would require details of species to be assessed by the arboriculturalist. Were the site to be demolished and not developed this would be considered harmful to the wider area. The proposed brick material was frost proof, and the applicant had been mindful of the need to use a durable material. The tiles that were on the northern boundary were those that the scheme intended to restore as far as possible.

14)            In response to Councillor Moonan it was clarified that Officers were of the view that refusal on the grounds of harm to neighbouring amenity was not warranted, and this had been weighed against the benefits of the scheme. In relation to the first floor terrace, it was explained that there was screening providing by the shutters.

15)            In response to Councillor Gilbey it was explained that the engineer’s report did propose solutions to enable the retention of the original building; however, the extent of new material required would undermine the historic building significantly.

16)            In response to Councillor Simson it was clarified that Officers considered all matters and took a balanced judgement in relation to applications. In this instance the site had a history of refusal, where the decisions of the LPA were upheld at appeal; Officers had acknowledged that harm would be caused, but felt this was outweighed by the site being brought back into use, restoration and the link the scheme would provide to the historic building.

17)            In response to Councillor Mac Cafferty it was explained there had not been any discussion since the previous application to have the site made the subject of a statutory listing; however, the local list had been reviewed and it was noticed that Medina House remained on the list as a building of civic and historic interest, but not for architectural merit.

18)            In response to Councillor Miller it was explained that regardless of the increase in height to mitigate flooding, the degradation of the masonry would of such extent that it undermine the integrity of the original building.

Debate and Decision Making Process

19)            Councillor Littman stated that he liked both the design and look of the building; in particular the references to the original building. He noted that he was currently more of a mind to support the Officer recommendation, but was open to be persuaded by colleagues during the debate.

20)            Councillor Moonan noted that she welcomed the redevelopment of the site, and accepted the arguments in relation to demolition. Her concerns related to the height and the eastern extension; the latter she felt would detrimentally impact the neighbouring properties, because of this she would not be supporting the Officer recommendation.

21)            Councillor Morris noted that he agreed with the comments made by Councillor Moonan. For reasons relating to the materials, the treatment of the frontage and the height of the eastern element he would not be supporting the Officer recommendation.

22)            Councillor C. Theobald agreed with the reasoning for raising the height, and highlighted the history of refusals relating to the site noting this application was favourable to previous ones. The scheme would be a significant improvement to the site and was supported by both the Civic Society and the Conservation Advisory Group, and it would benefit the neighbourhood and city. She stated it was attractive and she would support the Officer recommendation.

23)            Councillor Russell-Moyle stated that he agreed that the detail on the frontage was positive, and he felt the additional height on the main building was less harmful then the eastern extension. He went on to add that the extension would harm the ‘roofscape’ of the conservation area, and he was not convinced of the case in relation to demolition. He felt that the application could be more acceptable with a revised eastern element, and noted he was leaning towards voting against the Officer recommendation.

24)            Councillor Miller noted that he had concerns in relation to the demolition of the building, and felt this was not justified by the applicant. He stated that the preferable option was to retain the original building, or provide more information on economic viability as well as revising the eastern elevation.

25)            Councillor Simson stated she was convinced sufficient argument had been made around the viability matters to justify demolition of the original building. She went on to add that the eastern block was too high, and a scheme with less impact should be sought in this part of the city.

26)            Councillor Mac Cafferty noted his concern in relation to the amenity issues for neighbours; however, he noted the conservation area sought buildings that would preserve and enhance, and the building had not been successful in being designated with a statutory listing; therefore it was difficult to justify protecting the original building. There was a history of unsuccessful applications, and these applications had failed to overcome the complications of the site and the original building. For these reasons he would support the Officer recommendation.

27)            The Chair stated that she was of the view the design was excellent, and she was not convinced by the extent of the amenity issues as only two rooms in one property were affected – both of which were served by a second window. She would support the Officer recommendation.

28)            The Chair then put the application to the vote, which was tied with 5 in support, 5 against and 1 abstention; the Chair then exercised her casting vote and the Officer recommendation that the application be minded to grant was carried.

121.3    RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation, and resolves to be MINDED TO GRANT permission for the reasons set out in the report.