Agenda item - BH2017/02057- 43 Clarendon Villas, Hove -Full Planning

Demolition of existing garages and erection of 2no two storey office buildings (B1) to the rear of 43 & 45 Clarendon Villas, Hove incorporating parking and associated works.

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Ward Affected: Central Hove

              Demolition of existing garages and erection of 2no two storey office buildings (B1) to the rear of 43 & 45 Clarendon Villas, Hove incorporating parking 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, Colm McKee, gave a presentation by reference to plans, photographs and elevational drawings. The application related to a backland plot of land located between residential properties to the north fronting onto Goldstone Road and the residential properties to the south onto Clarendon Villas, in between nos. 43 and 45. The garages were used for vehicle parking (Sui Generis). Planning permission was being sought for the demolition of existing garages and erection of two, two storey office buildings incorporating associated works.

(3)          It was explained that despite the increase in height compared to the existing garage buildings, it would be of sufficient distance away from the windows of the flats located in Clarendon Villas so as not to result in significant loss of sunlight or daylight or to be of an overbearing nature. The proposal would also have the potential to create new views towards the neighbouring properties by way of overlooking from the south elevation. However, it should be noted that the rear windows of the flats within nos. 43 and 45 Clarendon Villas were already fully visible to any user of the existing garages.

(4)          The proposed development included a 2m high screen from ground floor level, and slatted screens on the windows, which would limit the views from the ground floor to within the office forecourts. The proposed south elevation roof lights were proposed to be at a height and angle which would not result in imposing views when closed and a condition was proposed which would require that they remain fixed shut. No windows were proposed to the north elevation. Provided that the privacy screens were implemented (this could be controlled by condition), it was not considered that the proposed development would result in significant levels of overlooking or loss of privacy; grant was therefore recommended.

              Public Speakers

(5)          Mr Pollard spoke on behalf of neighbouring residents setting out their objections to the proposed scheme. He stated that the proposals would in his view result in a greater degree of overlooking that was currently experienced by virtue of the greater intensification of the existing use which would be for a greater period of time each day. The existing garage use was intermittent and sporadic. Increased use of the site would result in detriment to neighbouring residents, some of whom worked from home. The turning head at the end of the road was far narrower that would be the case nowadays and in consequence would be problematic resulting in greater nuisance and potential hazard.

(6)          Mr Stern, the applicant, spoke in support of the scheme and addressed the points put forward by objectors. He explained that until some 18 months ago the garage area had in effect been in operation as a car pound, permitted under the existing permission and a use which as it stood could re-commence at any time. The proposed development would have a smaller footprint that the existing garage and had been screened and carefully designed so that it was angled away from the properties to the rear, so in his view would result in less overlooking and nuisance than was potentially the case currently. The proposed office would be in use Monday-Friday, so again, would in his view result in less nuisance.

              Questions for Officers

(7)          Councillor C Theobald enquired whether it was intended that the existing forecourt area which appeared in a very poor state of repair would be resurfaced. Mr Stern, the applicant confirmed that it would and that porous materials and planting would be used which would improve both its existing appearance and drainage.

(8)          Councillor Morris enquired regarding ownership  of  the  access way  to the garages and it was confirmed that shared right of way arrangements were in place.

(9)          Councillor Miller asked for details of where those who had objected to the application lived in relation to the site and whether/what kitchen arrangements it was intended would be provided.

(10)       Councillor Hyde referred to the points raised in the letter received from the Local Ward Councillor asking what arrangements would be put into place to mitigate any possible overlooking from the sky lights. It was explained that frosted glass would be used and they would be required to be fixed shut.

(11)       Councillor Mac Cafferty referred to the concerns of neighbours enquiring whether it would be possible to add a condition or informative to any permission granted to seek to control the hours during which the premises were in use. The Planning Manager, Major Applications, Paul Vidler stated that in view of the other existing adjacent garages and the fact that the proposed scheme would operate for fewer hours that would not be reasonable/practicable.

              Debate and Decision Making Process

(12)       Councillor Morris referred to the shared access arrangements enquiring whether an informative could be added requesting that notices be provided reminding those accessing the site that there were residential properties in close proximity to the site and reminding them of the need to behave in a neighbourly way. The Chair, Councillor Cattell, concurred in that view and thePlanning Manager, Paul Vidler confirmed that could be done.

(13)       Councillor Miller stated that notwithstanding all that had been said he considered that the proposed use would result in increased nuisance and overlooking and was therefore unable to support the application and would be voting against it.

(14)       A vote was taken and the 11 Members present when the vote was taken voted on a vote of 10 to 1 that planning permission be granted.

86.6       RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report and resolves to GRANT planning permission subject to the Conditions and Informatives also set out in the report and to an additional informative as set out below:

              Additional Informative 2:

              The applicant is requested to display notices which request employees and visitors to the offices to respect the amenities of the residents of the adjoining residential properties.

              Note: Councillor Littman was not present at the meeting when the vote was taken.