Agenda item - BH2016/05687 - 23A Third Avenue, Hove - Full Planning

Conversion of existing garage into (B1) office space with erection of a single storey rear extension, front extension and associated alterations.

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Ward Affected: Central Hove

C           BH2016/05687 - 23A Third Avenue, Hove - Full Planning

Conversion of existing garage into (B1) office space with erection of a single storey rear extension, front extension and associated alterations.

Officer Introduction

1)               The Principle Planning Officer, Jonathan Puplett, introduced the application and gave a presentation with reference to plans, photographs and elevational drawings. The site was within a conservation area and there had been three previous applications to change the use of the garage and these had been refused.

2)               The application was for a small extension at the front of the garage with glazed windows and a larger extension at the rear.

3)               The Officer’s recommendation was to grant the application as there had been no objections raised to the external alterations in the previous refused applications. The Officer added that the proposal would not negatively impact on the residents. 

4)               There were two proposed conditions, these were: to ensure the premises would only be used as an office space; and to ensure the details of secure cycle parking facilities for the occupants and visitors were submitted for approval before any development.

Public Speaker(s) and Questions

5)               Mr Huber addressed the Committee in his capacity as an objector and explained that the application was in a quiet, residential neighbourhood and three similar applications had been refused due to the impact on residents. He encouraged the Committee Members to have a site visit to his property, which neighboured the proposed application. He explained that his kitchen would lose natural light from the extension and the windows would be overlooked by employees and clientele entering and leaving the property. The kitchen window was clear glass and he stated that he did not want to have obscure glazing. Mr Huber also expressed concern for the traffic that would be caused by employees and clientele.

6)               Councillor Wealls addressed the Committee in his capacity as a Ward Councillor and explained that the previous application had been refused due to the proximity of the extension and the impact it would have on the amenity of the neighbouring property. The proposed office space would overlook the neighbouring property’s kitchen and lounge window impacting on Mr Huber’s privacy which would be affected by potential noise disturbance.  It was added that the extension on the front of the building would obscure the light into the neighbour’s kitchen. Councillor Wealls explained that there were not any restrictions in place to limit the amount of people who could use the office space or what time the office could be used.

7)               Mr Stern addressed the Committee in his capacity as the applicant and explained that he and his wife had been running their business consultancy for five years and wished to work with local businesses. He noted that he would be employing one person to work alongside himself, and therefore; would have a maximum of two people in the office at one time. They would not be having meetings on site and would be working normal working hours on Monday – Friday and limited hours over the weekend. He noted that there would not be an environmental impact and the office would not be using the residential communal bins. He added that the application would not restrict the light into Mr Huber’s kitchen.

8)               In response to Councillor C. Theobald Mr Stern explained that the clients would not be visiting the office and the additional space was to ensure there was enough wall space to prepare presentations. He added that he would accept a condition limiting the office space to this.

9)               Mr Stern explained to Councillor Morris that currently his business was located in London. He had previously applied for the garage to be converted into a studio flat for his daughter to move in to and have the office based in the house.

10)            In response to Councillor Moonan Mr Stern explained that he had no intention to sell the office space but understood the concerns if it was to be sold; therefore, offered a condition restricting the working hours and number of employees.

11)            Councillor Hyde proposed having a site visit to the property.

109.3    RESOLVED – That the Committee agreed to defer the item and attend a site visit to the property.