Agenda item - BH2016/05739 - 57 Tongdean Avenue, Hove - Full Planning

Erection of 1no five bedroom single dwelling (C3) with double garage associated landscaping, replacement of boundary walls and gate

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE

Erection of 1no five bedroom single dwelling (C3) with double garage associated landscaping, replacement of boundary walls and gate.

1)               The Principle Planning Officer gave a presentation with reference to photographs, plans and elevational drawings, and also noted proposed amendments to the basement floor that would not require further consultation with neighbours. The scheme was also no longer proposing the loss of some of the trees, and as such reason for refusal no. 2 had been withdrawn. The application sought permission for a single dwelling on a sub-divided plot. Outline permission had been granted in 2013, therefore the principle of the sub-division of the plot had been established. An application for full planning permission had been refused in 2016, and this new scheme proposed some revisions. However, there remained concern with the overall appearance, in particular that it would be overly dominant in the street scene. The application was recommended for refusal for the reason set out in the report.

Public Speaker(s) and Questions

2)               Farshid Moussavi spoke in support of the application in her capacity as the architect. She noted that she had designed the scheme as a property for her parents to live in. The Committee report acknowledged the diverse range of properties and materials in the conservation area. The proposed roof design would fit sensitively, and there were many other examples of white buildings in the area. The number of objections was now only four in relation to this scheme and none were immediately adjacent to the site. The Committee were invited to approve the application.

3)               In response to Councillor Morris, the speaker explained that the roof was designed to establish a dialogue with the wider context.

4)               In response to Councillor Miller, the speaker explained the fenestration was true to the layout inside which was split level.

Questions for Officers

5)               In response to Councillor Mac Cafferty it was explained the LPA had to be informed of any intention to fell a tree that was in a conservation area, the LPA could then make the tree the subject of a TPO if they wished to protect it. It was also noted that there had been pre-application advice given with the previously refused scheme, but not this one.

6)               It was confirmed for Councillor C. Theobald that the scheme now proposed to fell 14 trees on the site.

7)               It was confirmed for Councillor Morris that the site was located in the Conservation Area.

8)               In response to Councillor Moonan it was explained that Officers were recommending refusal for reasons in relation to the conservation area; such that the scheme would be dominant and overbearing.

Debate and Decision Making Process

9)               Councillor Morris noted that the roof form was not acceptable and he would support the Officer recommendation.

10)            Councillor Russell-Moyle noted that there was a diverse range of roof materials and forms in the area, and he was minded to not support the Officer recommendation

11)            Councillor Allen noted there was no uniform style in the area, and he welcomed the diversity in the street scene.

12)            Councillor Mac Cafferty highlighted that the character statement made reference to the variety of designs and styles in the area, and he felt the decision was a matter of taste. Were the Committee minded to grant the application then the approval of materials condition could be delegated to Officers in consultation with Members.

13)            Councillor C. Theobald noted that she agreed with the principle of a dwelling in this location, but she felt the roof form was out of character.

14)            Councillor Miller noted that the street scene was varied, and he felt the decision was a subjective matter of taste.

15)            Councillor Littman noted that the street scene was very varied, and he was minded to not support the Officer recommendation.

16)            Councillor Moonan noted the application was one of taste and she would take her reasoning from the immediate neighbours, whom had not objected to the scheme.

17)            The Chair noted that the recommendation evidenced consistency in the recommendations made by Officers. The character statement was clear, and this application would not enhance the conservation area.

18)            The Chair then put the application to the vote and the Officer recommendation was not carried with 3 in support, and 8 against. Councillor Miller then proposed reasons to grant the application and these were seconded by Councillor Mac Cafferty. A recorded vote was then taken, Councillors: Gilbey, Mac Cafferty, Simson, Allen, Littman, Miller, Moonan and Russell- Moyle voted to grant the application and Councillors: Cattell, C. Theobald and Morris voted to refuse the application.

121.7    RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration the Officer recommendation, but resolves to grant planning permission for the reasons set out below:

i)       The proposed development, by reason of its appropriate design and detailing, including the roof form, fenestration detailing and materials, would not result in a development which would fail to emphasise and enhance the positive qualities and characteristics of the area. As such the development would not appear unduly dominant and incongruous within the streetscene and would not be detrimental to the character and appearance of Tongdean Avenue streetscene and the wider Conservation Area, and is thereby in accordance with policies CP12 and CP15 of the Brighton and Hove City Plan Part One and HE6 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.