Agenda item - BH2017/00574- 80A Stoneham Road, Hove - Full Planning

Formation of third floor to form 2no bedroom flat incorporating front balcony, terrace and associated works.

RECOMMENDATION – WISH

Ward Affected:Wish

              Formation of third floor to form 2no bedroom flat incorporating terrace and associated works.

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

Officer Presentation

(2)             The Principal Planning Officer, Jonathan Puplett, introduced the report and gave a presentation by reference to site plans, photographs and elevational drawings delineating the proposed scheme. The application site related to a three storey apartment building comprising flats, located on the south side of Stoneham Road. The property was constructed in render and timber cladding with aluminium fenestration. To the east was the former Maynards Sweet Factory (which was included on the Local List of Heritage Assets), which had been converted into seven live-work units. To the west of the site was the School Road industrial estate. To the south the site dropped down to the rear gardens of houses fronting Marmion Road whilst to the north there were are two storey terraced single family dwelling houses in Alpine Road, which were characteristic of the surrounding area.

(3)          It was noted that the main considerations in the determining the application related to the impact of the additional storey on the character and appearance of the building, adjacent locally listed Sweet Factory building, the wider street scene, the effect on the amenity of neighbouring residential occupiers, the standard of proposed accommodation, and transport and sustainability issues.

(4)          The main concern related to the potential impact of the additional height of the development on the properties to the south of the site. The properties to the rear, most notably nos, 33 & 35 Marmion Road, were set in a terrace of two storey houses. The terraces on Marmion Road tapered in relation to Stoneham Road such that the development site was in closer proximity than the adjacent Sweet Factory building. The submitted section drawing revealed that the development site was on higher ground level to the properties on Marmion Road, with the additional fourth floor set at a separation of 15m. Residents to the rear of the site had raised concerns regarding the impact of the proposal on their properties in terms of overshadowing and loss of light, but it was considered that as under this application the rear elevation of the additional storey would be recessed and angled away from the rear elevation of the building this impact, identified by the Inspector in an earlier appeal decision would be lessened. Proposed glazing and the angle of the rear elevation would restrict views toward the rear elevations. It was also considered unlikely that the proposal would generate a substantial increase in trips to the application site; approval was therefore recommended.

(5)          It was noted that Condition 7 relating to the issuing of parking permits had been included in error and that a condition (as set out in the Additional Representations List), needed to be added.

              Public Speaker(s) and Questions

(6)          Ms Bell spoke in objection to the scheme explaining that she did not consider that the previous grounds for refusal had been overcome also that the impact on the Maynard’s sweet factory building, recognised as being of great merit, had not been given sufficient weight.

(7)          Councillor Nemeth spoke in his capacity as a Local Ward Councillor setting out his objections to the scheme. He stated the scheme had been wrongly advertised and although in consequence the period for making representations had been extended, it had nonetheless given rise to confusion. Differences between this scheme and that which had been refused previously were negligible and he failed to see how the grounds for refusal had been overcome. The scheme needed to be seen in the context of the rest of the street and the adjoining Maynard’s factory building.

(8)          Mr Thompson spoke on behalf of the applicant in support of their scheme. He explained that the scheme put forward had sought to address both the previous reasons for refusal and the concerns of neighbouring objectors and to provide a scheme which was sympathetic to its surroundings. The building had been set back in order to make it subservient to the Maynard’s building.

              Questions for Officers

(9)          Councillor Moonan referred to the concerns raised in respect of overshadowing and loss of light seeking clarification as to how this had been quantified. It was explained that any potential loss of light fell well within BRE guidelines.

(10)       Councillor Wealls sought clarification of the differences between the previously refused scheme and that for which permission was currently sought.

(11)       Councillors Morris and C Theobald also sought clarification by reference to the submitted drawings in respect of each scheme and showing the site in relation to the Maynard’s site and the neighbouring street scene. Councillor Morris also sought confirmation of the escape arrangements in the event of a fire. It was confirmed that evacuation from the Maynard building would be through the adjacent building.

(12)       Section drawings were displayed and the Chair, Councillor Cattell, also asked to see drawings indicating the level of set back as did Councillors Hyde and Inkpin-Leissner.

(13)       Councillor Inkpin-Leissner sought clarification as to the weight which was given to the previous refusal. It was explained that it was germane to assessment of this application and that it behoved Members to decide whether or not they considered the reasons for refusal had been adequately addressed and overcome.

(14)       During discussion, the general consensus appeared to be that Members were experiencing difficulties in determining the differences between the previous scheme and that currently before them and its context within the immediate street scene which encompassed it’s impact not only on the Maynard’s factory but also the streets in the immediate vicinity including those to the rear.

(15)       The Chair, Councillor Cattell, stated that in her view as a number of queries had been raised there was merit in deferring determination of the application in order to enable them to be answered fully. Councillor Cattell then put this as a formal proposal which was seconded by Councillor Morris. A vote was then taken.

(16)       A vote was taken and of the 10 Members present when the vote was taken Members voted by 8 to 2 to defer consideration of the above application in order to clarify the position in respect of the previous refusals and appeal decision and to provide the other information requested by Members, namely, detailed drawings/slides highlighting the differences between the existing and proposed schemes in order that comparisons may be made between the previous scheme and that for which permission is sought currently. Members were also of the view that clearer photographs of the neighbouring street scene would be beneficial.

20.4       RESOLVED – That consideration of the above application be deferred to enable the information requested to be provided in order to facilitate the Committee’s decision making.

              Note1: Councillor Miller was absent from the meeting during consideration of the above application and took no part in the debate or decision making.

              Note 2: As the decision to defer determination of the application was taken after all parties had spoken no one would be able to speak further in respect of this application.