Agenda item - BH2013/02543 - Seaholme Hotel, 10-11 Seafield Road, Hove - Full Planning

Conversion of ground, first and second floor of 10 Seafield Road Hove, from hostel (C1) to 5no self contained flats incorporating revised entrance and associated works.

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Conversion of ground, first and second floor of 10 Seafield Road Hove, from hostel (C1) to 5no self contained flats incorporating revised entrance and associated works.

(1)             The Area Planning Manager, Nicola Hurley, introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to plans, photographs and elevational drawings. The site related to an existing hotel in Seafield Road with had been altered over time with dormers and extensions, and was mostly used by ‘backpackers’. Planning permission was sought for the conversion of the ground, first and second floors – whilst the lower ground floor would remain part of the hotel. The design had been amended to remove terraces and balconies. In relation to the loss of the hotel use it was noted that the site was outside of the revised core hotel area in the emerging City Plan, and this policy was considered to hold more weight than the adopted Local Plan. The main areas of residential concern had been in relation to the potential loss of privacy through the balconies and terraces which had been removed from the scheme. In terms of the design the alterations would have little impact, and the application was recommended for approval subject to an amended condition 2 – removing one of the approved drawings.

Public Speaker(s) and Questions

(2)             Councillor Hawtree spoke in support of the scheme in his capacity as the Local Ward Councillor stating that he felt the scheme would be an improvement for Seafield Road generally; he noted he had objected to the original application, but welcomed the amendments as an example of achieving more housing.

(3)             In response to Councillor Hyde it was confirmed by Councillor Hawtree that he did not object to the Juliet balconies.

Questions for Officers

(4)             In response to Councillor C. Theobald it was explained that the reference to holiday lets was the view of an objector.

(5)             The Area Planning Manager noted that the representation from the local MP supported the application.

(6)             In response to Councillor Duncan it was explained that transport contributions had not been sought as part of the recession measures, and there was a condition in relation to access to residents parking permits.

(7)             In response to Councillor A. Norman it was noted that as the development was a conversion the Council needed to employ a more relaxed approach to Lifetime Homes Standards.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(8)             Councillor C. Theobald noted this was a good use of the hostel and hoped the rest of the building could come back into residential use.

(9)             Councillor Duncan noted he would be voting against the Officer recommendation as the principle of the scheme was acceptable, but the units were too small.

(10)          A vote was taken of the 11 Members present and the Officer recommendation that planning permission be approved was carried on a vote of 10 in support with 1 against.

19.2       RESOLVED -  That the Committee has taken into consideration the recommendation and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in section 11 and resolves to GRANT planning permission subject to conditions and informatives.

Note: Councillor Davey was not present at the meeting.