Agenda item - BH2015/00439 68 Davigdor Road, Hove - Full Planning

Conversion of first floor flat and loft to create 3no flats including rear dormers and balcony, side dormer and front rooflights, removal of chimney stacks and additional rear window and doors at first floor level.

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Ward Affected: Goldsmid

              Conversion of first floor flat and loft to create 3no flats including rear dormers and balcony, side dormer and front rooflights, removal of chimney stacks and additional rear window and doors at first floor level.

(1)          The Planning Manager, Applications, Nicola Hurley, gave a presentation by reference to site plans and elevational drawings. Reference was made to the previous refused application.

(2)          It was explained that the main considerations in regard to this application were the principle of conversion, the standard of accommodation to be provided, the impact on neighbouring residential amenity, traffic issues and sustainability issues. Accurate plans in relation to the scheme had now been submitted which enabled a full assessment of the application to be made.

(3)          It was considered that the proposed development would cause no loss of light or privacy to adjacent occupiers, would not harm the appearance of the building, would not result in the loss of a small unit of self-contained accommodation, and would retain a residential unit suitable for family occupation. The proposal was considered to be in accordance with development plan policies and approval was therefore recommended.

              Public Speakers and Questions

(4)          Ms Engleman spoke on behalf of her mother a neighbouring objector setting out her objections to the proposed scheme. Ms Engleman explained that due to the close proximity of the entrance doorway of the development to her mother’s bedroom it would result in additional noise, overlooking and loss of privacy for a vulnerable elderly lady. Once occupied, the proposed scheme would result in additional noise by virtue of the additional number of occupants. The additional noise generated during the course of the building works would be intolerable and unneighbourly. Councillor Buckley had written letters of objection in respect of the scheme in the past, having not stood for re-election it had been too early in the new administration to gain the support of any of the newly elected ward councillors.

(5)          Having heard the submission on behalf of the objector Councillor Hyde indicated that she was of the view that it might be appropriate to carry out a site visit prior to determining the application. The Chair considered that it would be appropriate for Committee Members to hear both of the public speakers before deciding whether to carry out a site visit.

(6)          Mr Mc Nulty spoke on behalf of the applicants in support of their application. He explained that both the proposed development and the neighbouring property occupied by Ms Engleman’s mother had been built as flats although they read as dwelling houses within the street scene. The existing development was in a poor state of repair internally and did not meet modern building control requirements/standards. The works to be carried out in accordance with the proposals would result in improved soundproofing between this building and the neighbouring property such that there would be a reduction in the current levels of noise penetration through the party wall. Works would be carried out in a neighbourly manner, during normal working hours neither commencing very early in the morning, nor continuing into the evening.

              Questions of Officers

(7)          Councillor Simson sought clarification regarding the location of the proposed entrance to the new flats in relation to the entrance to the neighbouring property as did Councillors Deane and Hyde.

(8)          Councillor Phillips explained that having heard the officer’s presentation and Ms Engleman speaking subsequently on her mother's behalf that she had entered Mrs Engleman’s mother’s flat when a Ward Councillor for Goldsmid Ward. She confirmed, however that she had not expressed any opinion in respect of the application, had made no pre-determination of it and remained of a neutral mind.

(9)          Councillor Hyde also sought confirmation of the staircase between the development site and the neighbouring property as did Councillor Wealls. It was confirmed that this ran directly against the party wall separating the two dwellings.

(10)       Councillor Robins sought further confirmation regarding configuration of the proposed flats located at first floor level. Councillor Gilbey referred to the earlier refusal seeking confirmation as to how this had been overcome. The Planning Manager Applications explained that estate agent particular evidence, including photographic evidence not provided previously, had confirmed that the flat had been built as a four bedroom unit. This meant that the proposals were therefore acceptable under adopted planning policy, in that the original floor area whilst less than 115sqm it had originally been built with more than three bedrooms and at least one of the units to be provided would be suitable for family accommodation having a minimum of two bedrooms.

(11)       Councillor Deane asked for confirmation of the area in square metres. The officer confirmed the measurement of the room. Councillor Phillips stated that she had understood that this information was to be provided in respect of all applications as Councillor Randall had made a previous request for this information to be annotated. The Planning and Building Control Applications Manager stated that she would investigate the practicality of doing so and would report back further thereon.

(12)       Councillor A Norman stated that she was in agreement with Councillor Hyde that it would be beneficial to carry out a site visit prior to determining the application.

(13)       A vote was taken and Members voted by 9 to 1 with 2 abstentions to carry out a site visit in respect of the above application.

189.2    RESOLVED – That the application be deferred to allow a site visit to take place.

              Note: It was noted that as the decision to carry out a site visit had been taken after each of the public speakers had made their submissions, that there would be no further public speaking in respect of this application.