Agenda item - BH2016/01224 - 11 Boundary Road and land to rear of Harbour Mews, Hove - Full Planning

Conversion of existing ground floor rear office (B1) and demolition of existing warehouse (B8) at rear to create 1no two bedroom flat (C3) incorporating single storey side/rear extension and erection of 1no three bedroom house with associated landscaping and car parking.

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Ward Affected: Wish

Conversion of existing ground floor rear office (B1) and demolition of existing warehouse (B8) at rear to create 1no two bedroom flat (C3) incorporating single storey side/rear extension and erection of 1 no three bedroom house with associated landscaping and car parking.

(1)             It was noted that this application had been the subject of a site visit prior to the meeting.

(2)             The Planning Manager, Major Applications, Paul Vidler gave a presentation by reference to site plans, elevational drawings and photographs showing the application site in context with the neighbouring street scene and the properties in Harbour Mews. It was noted that the application related to a single storey, dual-pitched roof, warehouse to the rear of no. 11 Boundary Road within Harbour Mews. The application also involved an existing single storey rear, flat roof, extension to no. 11 Boundary Road, which provided ancillary office space for the warehouse use. The warehouse and premises was currently vacant. The main considerations in respect of this application were the principle of development on the site, the impacts of the proposed dwelling on the character and appearance of the street, the impacts on the amenities of adjacent occupiers, the standard of accommodation to be provided, and sustainability and traffic issues.

(3)             The principle of the development was considered to be acceptable and the development would make efficient and effective use of the site and would have no adverse impact on the character and visual amenity of the locality. It would provide a new unit of housing with an adequate standard of accommodation without detriment to neighbouring amenity or highway safety and approval was therefore recommended.

Questions of Officers

(4)          Councillor Mac Cafferty queried the reference to Georgian properties in the vicinity and it was confirmed that should have been Victorian.

(5)          Councillors C Theobald and Miller sought clarification regarding the height of the proposed development.

(6)          Councillor C Theobald also enquired whether any of the windows to the proposed development would overlook the neighbouring properties in Seafield Road. It was confirmed that there were only roof lights proposed to that elevation.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(7)          Councillor Theobald stated that she had found the site visit beneficial as it had dispelled any concerns she had had regarding the proposed scheme.

(8)          A vote was taken and the ten members present when the vote was taken voted unanimously that planning permission be granted.

44.7       RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in section 11 of the report and the policies and guidance in section 7 and resolves to GRANT planning permission subject to the Conditions and Informatives set out in section 11.

              Note: Councillors Moonan and Morris were not present during consideration of the above application or when the vote was taken.