Agenda item - BH2013/00370 - 17 Hill Drive, Hove - Full Planning Permission -Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of a new 3 bed house -Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of a new 3 bed house.

skip navigation and tools

Agenda item

BH2013/00370 - 17 Hill Drive, Hove - Full Planning Permission -Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of a new 3 bed house -Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of a new 3 bed house.

Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of a new 3 bed house.

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE

Minutes:

            (1)       The Area Planning Manager, Mrs Hurley introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to site plans, elevational drawings and photographs showing the existing property in the context of the site and neighbouring dwellings and the proposed scheme. Plans of the existing and proposed floor plans were also shown.

 

(2)       Planning permission was sought for the demolition of the existing dwelling and the erection of a replacement three-storey building. The three-storey section of the building would incorporate a gabled roof with a north-south ridgeline, with projecting flat-roofed sections to the front and side of the main building. A single-storey flat roofed side section of the building would incorporate a roof terrace. The building would feature render to all elevations with a slate roof. Although some of the reasons for refusal of an earlier scheme, BH2012/01831 had been overcome (refused 28/09/2012), it was considered that the development by reason of its scale, siting and detailing would appear unduly dominant and bulky in relation to adjoining properties and the wider surrounding area. It was considered that the proposed development would harm the existing character and appearance of Hill Drive. The development therefore failed to respond sufficiently to the scale, character and appearance of the existing built environment and refusal was therefore recommended.

 

            Public Speakers and Questions

 

(3)       Ms Ralbovska spoke on behalf of the applicant spoke in support of their application. Ms Ralbovska explained that the applicant had sought to address the previous reasons for refusal, to make all of the amendments required and to provide a high quality of development. They did not consider that the scheme would be more dominant than other schemes in Hill Drive which had a variety of building styles, nor that it was out of character with the prevailing street scene. It had taken 18 months to get to this point and they were very disappointed at the Officers’ recommendations.

 

            Questions for Officers

 

(4)       Councillor Shanks enquired why lifetime homes standards or to the protection off on site archaeology had not been sought. The Area Planning Manager explained  that conditions in respect of these matters were been sought as a condition of grant of planning permission; when planning approval was recommended, this application was however recommended for refusal. Councillor Shanks also enquired why the letter of objection from Councillors Bennett and Brown had been included as it appeared to relate to the earlier scheme. The Area Planning Manager explained that objections were included unless they were withdrawn following notification of an amended scheme.

 

(5)       Councillor Phillips enquired whether all necessary amendments had been made to the earlier scheme and if so, why it was still recommended for refusal, the applicants had indicated that the building line to the front of the development had been scaled back by more than 2 metres. The Development Control Manager explained that notwithstanding any discussions which had taken place Officers remained of the view that the proposals would appear unduly dominant and create an unacceptable contrast and sense of bulk in relation to the adjoining properties and within the wider surrounding area.

 

            Debate and Decision Making Process

 

(6)       Councillor C Theobald stated that the configuration of the proposed dwelling within the site was unusual enquiring whether if it been aligned differently it might have been acceptable. The Area Planning Manager that the applicants had chosen to submit the scheme in its current form, concerns regarding design of the scheme had not been overcome sufficiently.

 

(7)       Councillor Hyde sought further clarification of the differences between the previous refused application and that before the Committee that afternoon. This information was given by reference to the relevant drawings. Councillor Hyde stated that although she considered a new development could be appropriate on for the site she did not consider this scheme was and was in agreement with the Officers’ recommendation. Councillor C Theobald also concurred in that view.

 

(8)       Councillor Gilbey sought clarification of the extent and location of glazing to the proposed south elevation.

 

(9)       Councillor Cox stated that although he liked the design of the scheme he did not consider it appropriate to the application site considering that it would give rise potentially to an unacceptable degree of over looking.

 

(10)     Councillor Bowden sought clarification of the building line of the proposed development in relation to the neighbouring dwellings and within the context of the surrounding street scene. He did not agree that it would be detrimental or overbearing and considered that overall the scheme was acceptable.

 

(11)     Councillor Shanks was of the  view that scheme would not have a negative impact on amenity and Councillor Phillips agreed, considering that the proposed building represented a good modern design which was in keeping with its neighbours and set on the diagonal as it was, would not be too far forward of the existing building line.

 

(12)     A vote was taken and the 11 Members of the Committee present when the vote was taken voted that planning permission be refused on a vote of  6 to 4 with 1 abstention.

 

43.2    RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in section 11 and the policies and guidance in section 7 and resolves to REFUSE planning permission for the reasons set out below:

 

Reasons for Refusal:

            1. The development by reason of its scale, siting and detailing would appear unduly dominant and create a contrast and sense of bulk which, in relation to adjoining properties and the wider surrounding area, would harm the existing character and appearance of Hill Drive. The development therefore fails to respond sufficiently to the scale, character and appearance of the existing built environment, and is contrary to policies QD1 and QD2 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

 

            Informatives: 1. In accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy SS1 of the Brighton & Hove City Plan Part One (submission document) 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. 2. This decision is based on the drawings listed below:

 

            Plan Type Reference Version Date Received

Site location plan L(-1) 100 06/02/2013

Existing Site Plan L(-1) 101 06/02/2013

Existing Ground Floor Plan L(-2) 101 06/02/2013

Existing Sections, A-A, B-B L(-3) 101 06/02/2013

Existing Elevations (front and side) L(-4) 101 06/02/2013

Existing Elevations (rear and side) L(-4) 102 06/02/2013

Proposed Site Plan L(-1) 301/2 A 10/06/2013

Proposed Lower Ground Floor L(-2) 301/2 10/06/2013

Proposed Ground Floor Plan L(-2) 302/2 A 10/06/2013

Proposed First Floor Plan L(-2) 303/2 A 10/06/2013

Site Location Plan – as proposed L(-1) 300

Proposed Section A-A L(-3) 301/2 A 10/06/2013

Proposed Section B-B L(-3) 302/2 A 10/06/2013

Proposed Section C-C L(-3) 303/2 A 10/06/2013

Proposed Section D-D L(-3) 304/2 A 10/06/2013

            Proposed Side Elevation L(-4) 301/2 A 10/06/2013

Proposed Side Elevation L(-4) 302/2 A 10/06/2013

Proposed Front Elevation L(-4) 303/2 A 10/06/2013

Proposed Rear Elevation L(-4) 304/2 A 10/06/2013

Proposed Side Elevation –boundary wall elevation

L(-4) 305/2 A 10/06/2013

 

Note: Having declared an interest in the above application Councillor Robins left the meeting during its consideration and took no part in the discussion, debate or decision making process.

Supporting documents:

 


Brighton & Hove City Council | Hove Town Hall | Hove | BN3 3BQ | Tel: (01273) 290000 | Mail: info@brighton-hove.gov.uk | how to find us | comments & complaints