Agenda item - BH2016/05550 - Amber Court, 38 Salisbury Road, Hove - Full Planning

Creation of additional fourth floor level to form 2no two bedroom flats with terraces to the rear.

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Ward Affected: Brunswick & Adelaide

Creation of additional floor at fourth floor level to form 2no two bedroom flats with terraces to rear (part-retrospective).

Officer Presentation

1)               The Principal Planning Officer introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to photographs, plans and elevational drawings. The application site had planning permission, which was agreed in 2016, and the current application was for the same scheme but with an amended height of the privacy screens on the balconies to be adjusted. The agreed planning permission had the balustrade height at 1.8 metres; however, the applicant was applying for these to be adjusted to 1.5 metres. The Principal Planning Officer added that the Planning Inspector found that adjusting the height of the balustrade to 1.5 metres would not materially affect the neighbouring properties at the rear of the site.

Public Speaker(s) and Questions

2)               Ms Carol Wilson spoke in objection to the application in her capacity as local resident. She stated residents in the Palmeira area strongly opposed the reduction of the privacy screen as the new buildings were physically opposing and overwhelming, especially with the additional floor. The previously agreed screens were to avoid overlooking and noise pollution and the reduction of these would result in direct overlooking into the gardens of the residents.

3)               Mr James Boys spoke in objection to the application in his capacity as the agent. He stated that the application was the same as the previously approved scheme apart from the reduction in the privacy screens. He explained that the proposal was to have them lowered to 1.5 metres; however, they have been set back to prevent overlooking. He added that there would not be an issue with increased noise.

4)               In response to Councillor Yates the agent explained that the reduction of height was considered as it would improve the view for the future residents.

5)               In response to Councillor Bennett it was confirmed that the screens would still be made from obscure glazing.

6)               In response to Councillor Hyde Mr Boys believed that the previously agreed screens were for 1.8 metres to address the problems raised by residents.

7)               In response to Councillor Gilbey it was noted that residents were likely to be sitting on the balconies rather than standing and overlooking into residents gardens.

Debate and Decision Making Process

8)               Councillor Yates noted that it was a difference of 30cm and the residents were most likely going to sit down on their balconies rather than stand.

9)               Councillor Russell-Moyle agreed with Councillor Yates and would be supporting the Officer’s recommendation.

10)            Councillor Mac Cafferty noted that the lowering of the balconies would make the neighbours at the rear of the flats feel overlooked and would therefore not be supporting the Officer’s recommendation.

11)            Councillor Littman noted that he sympathised with the objector and the local residents as the reduction would result in the privacy screens being below the majority of people’s eye level. He added that he would not be supporting the Officer’s recommendation.

12)            Councillor Morris agreed with Councillors Mac Cafferty and Littman and would not be supporting the Officer’s recommendation.

13)            The Chair then put the application to the vote, and the Officer recommendation that the application be granted was carried by 6 votes in support, 3 votes against and 2 abstentions.

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