Agenda item - BH2016/05889 - 161 Elm Drive, Hove - Full Planning

Demolition of outbuildings and erection of 1no two bedroom dwelling (C3) incorporating new crossover

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE

Demolition of outbuildings and erection of 1no two bedroom dwelling (C3) incorporating new crossover.

1)               The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation by reference to plans, photographs and elevational drawings. The application sought permission for a new property involving the division of an existing plot. The proposed dwelling would have a very small garden, look cramped and contrived and be out of keeping with the area. A previous application had been refused for a similar scheme; although changes had been made with this application they were minor and did not overcome the principle objection. The application was recommended for refusal for the reasons set out in the report.

Questions for Officers, Debate and Decision Making Process

2)               In response to Councillor Russell-Moyle it was explained that the principle problem with the development was the size of the plot, the sub-division would also be out of keeping with the wider area.

3)               Councillor Simson noted that the site was too cramped.

4)               Councillor Mac Cafferty stated that the area was not uniform in terms of size or space; he would be voting against the Officer recommendation.

5)               Councillor Morris stated that he would not support the Officer recommendation.

6)               Councillor Miller noted that the design was not appropriate, and he would be supporting the Officer recommendation.

7)               Councillor Russell-Moyle noted that the design was not in keeping with the area, and he would be supporting the Officer recommendation.

8)               Councillor Moonan highlighted the housing demand in the city, and stated that she would not support the Officer recommendation.

9)               The Chair highlighted her concern that to grant the application would potentially undermine key policy.

10)            The Chair then put the recommendation to the vote and the Officer recommendation that the application be refused was carried with 6 in support, 3 against and 2 abstentions.

121.6    That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out below and resolves to REFUSE planning permission for the following reasons:

i)       The proposed dwelling is considered an inappropriate and cramped form of development by reason of its size and plot coverage that would result in an uncharacteristic subdivision of the existing plot and represents an over-   development of the site to the detriment of the character of the area. The proposal is therefore contrary policy CP12 of the Brighton and Hove City Plan Part One.

Informatives:

i)       In accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy SS1 of the Brighton & Hove City Plan Part One 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.

ii)     This decision is based on the drawings received listed below: