Agenda item - BH2015/04563 - 20 Tongdean Avenue, Hove - Full Planning

Demolition of existing house (C3) and erection of 1no five bedroom house (C3).

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE

              Demolition of existing house (C3) and erection of 1no five bedroom house.

(1)             The Principal Planning Officer, Applications, Jonathan Puplett gave a presentation by reference to elevational drawings, plans and photographs, highlighting the changes between the previous application refused in July 2015 and the current application. It was noted that the application related to a detached property situated on the south western side of Tongdean Avenue, which was residential in character. The existing property featured a pitched roof with a two storey front gable extension. In addition, the property featured a dormer window on the roof slope facing No.18 Tongdean Avenue. Tongdean Avenue was characterised by dwelling houses of varying design, form and detailing set within large plots.

(2)          The proposal was to redevelop the site by demolishing the existing house and forming a new detached dwelling in its place. As such the main considerations in determining the application related to the design and appearance of the works and the impact on the character and appearance of the area, the impact of the development on the residential amenity of neighbouring properties, the standard of accommodation and sustainability and transport and highway considerations.

(3)          Whilst it was considered that there was potential to redevelop the site, the proposal as it stood represented an overdevelopment which would be overly dominant of the neighbouring properties when viewed from the rear. The bulk, form and massing of the development so close to neighbouring properties would be oppressive and overbearing particularly to the occupiers of No.18 Tongdean Avenue. The width of the accommodation proposed at second floor level when viewed from the rear had not been substantially reduced. It was noted that the landing and study areas shown on the proposed first floor layout had been set back from the rear elevation, creating a stepped back appearance. However when viewed directly from the rear of the property these elements occupied much of the width of the proposed dwelling, resulting in a dominant appearance which did not appear subservient to the floors below. This dominance was further exacerbated through the large areas of glazing proposed. The formation of balconies on the rear of the site was considered unneighbourly and would provide extensive and elevated views into neighbouring gardens.

(4)          Whilst it was acknowledged that revisions had been made to the previously refused scheme, in order to reduce the bulk of the proposed new dwelling it was not considered that these modifications substantially overcame the previous reason for refusal and refusal was therefore recommended.

(5)          It was noted that the applicant had sent a separate representation to Members of the Committee in support of their application.

            Public Speaker(s) and Questions

(6)          Mr Coleman the applicant, spoke in support of his application and was accompanied by his architect Mr Lap Chan. Mr Coleman explained that his family had lived on the site for 11 years and that the application would replace a chalet bungalow which was of little architectural merit, did not respect the topography of the site and which had suffered from a number of unsympathetic extensions over the years with a modern building which was fit for purpose and would provide for his family’s needs.

(7)          The building would be of a sympathetic scale and account had been taken of the concerns of neighbours. It should be noted that there was already a degree mutual overlooking between the application site and its neighbours and that this would not be worsened by the proposed scheme. Screening would also be provided which would mitigate against any perceived loss of privacy. It was important to note that having viewed the amended scheme Councillor Brown, one of the Local Ward Councillors, who had objected to the scheme now supported it, considering that previous concerns had been rectified in this new application. In the current application the top floor had been reduced and set back further and the balconies and window on the side facing 18 Tongdean Avenue had been removed.

            Questions for Officers

(8)          Councillor Wares referred to statements in respect of the design and scale of the development set out in the applicant’s submission indicating that the scheme was acceptable, stating that these appeared to be at variance with comments set out in the report, and asked for clarification on this point. It was explained that officers considered that the street facing façade of the proposed development was considered broadly acceptable. Whilst it was acknowledged that the rear elevation would not be visible from public vantage points, it would be visible from parts of the neighbouring houses and gardens. It was this element of the scheme that gave rise for concerns as the property would project to the rear of the site over three storeys.

(9)          Councillor Miller asked for further sight of the front and rear elevations.

(10)       Councillor Morris requested in the context of the previous scheme and that currently submitted.

(11)       Councillor Mac Cafferty referred to statements contained in the report relating to perceived overlooking seeking clarification as to why this differentiation had been made. It was explained that due to the topography and sloping nature of the site this was an issue to which consideration would be given at appeal. Additionally, officers remained of the view that the rear of the development would be too bulky. It was considered that the additional bulk at upper floor level in combination with the flat roof design would result in increased massing relative to the existing property.

(12)       Councillor Page stated that he found the side elevations difficult to interpret and sought further clarification of them.

(13)       Councillor O’Quinn asked whether the proposed balconies could also give rise to noise nuisance as well as overlooking.

(14)       Councillor Morris sought clarification regarding the areas of glazing proposed to the rear, given that this appeared to be one of the issues of greatest contention.

(15)       Councillor Barradell sought clarification of the footprint of the current proposals, bearing in mind that amendments had been made also, clarification of the screening and boundary treatments proposed. Councillor Barradell considered that the scheme was complex in view of the topography of the site.

(16)       Councillor Gilbey sought further clarification regarding the impact on the rear garden, the level of oblique views/overlooking in juxtaposition to neighbouring gardens and the height and location of the screening/boundary treatment.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(17)       Councillor Morris enquired whether as the level of rear glazing proposed appeared to constitute the main concern in respect of the scheme whether this the application could be deferred and the applicant invited to amend that element of the scheme. The Chair confirmed that the Committee were required to determine the application as put before them.

(18)       Councillor Miller stated that he considered that the amended scheme was acceptable, particularly in view of the elements of the scheme which had been set back and the fact that boundary treatments and screening were proposed in order to address any potential negative impact.

(19)       Councillor Barradell stated that she considered the proposal represented an improvement on the existing building on site and the proposed scheme was acceptable.

(20)       Councillor Mac Cafferty considered that the scheme was acceptable, and that the glazing proposed could be provided in such way that it did not compromise a 45 degree sight line. In consequence, he considered that there no greater degree of overlooking would result than was currently the case.

(21)       Councillor C Theobald stated that she was in agreement with the officer recommendation that the application should be refused considering that the proposed dwelling would be far too bulky to the rear and would have a negative impact on neighbouring residential dwellings.

(22)       The Chair, Councillor Cattell stated that whilst the proposal represented a bold design she was in agreement that as currently presented it was too bulky and would result in an unneighbourly form of development and should therefore be refused.

(23)       A vote was taken and on a vote of 7 to 5 planning permission was refused in line with the recommendations set out in the officer report.

166.4    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 in section11.