Agenda item - BH2017/04139,9 The Upper Drive, Hove -Full Planning

Creation of additional storeys to existing block D to provide an enlarged two bedroom flat at first floor level and 2no additional flats at second and third floor level.

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Ward Affected:Goldsmid

Creation of additional storeys to existing block D to provide an enlarged two bedroom flat at first floor level and 2no additional flats at second and third floor level.

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

Officer Introduction

(2)       The Principal Planning Officer, Jonathan Puplett, introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to plans, elevational drawings, photographs and floor plans.

(3)       The main considerations in determining the application related to the impact of the development on the character and appearance of the existing building, site and streetscene, the impact on residential amenity, the standard of accommodation provided and highways and sustainability issues. 16 letters of objection had been submitted to the Planning Department and the Planning Officer confirmed where the objections had been received from.

(4)       It was the Planning Officer’s opinion that the development would not seem out of character with the area. The original design had been mindful of the relationship with no. 13 The Upper Dive but now that the development was in situ it was considered that the proposed extension would not have an overbearing impact on its neighbour.

            Questions to the Planning Officer

(5)       In response to the Chair, the Planning Officer stated that the side windows as proposed were obscure glazing but this had not been a condition when permission was granted for the initial scheme. There was a four year window in which enforcement action could have been taken but this has now passed. There was a proposed condition to obscurely glaze the side windows for the current application.

(6)       Councillor Moonan asked why the design had been varied from the other two blocks. The bedroom on the top floor seemed to have been expanded and the terrace area reduced.

(7)       The Planning Officer responded that the variations did not cause enough harm to warrant refusal as it was broadly in keeping with the character of the surrounding area. He did not know why the design had been varied.

(9)       In response to Councillor Moonan, the Planning Officer stated that the extension would cause a loss of light in the neighbouring property but that the side windows which would be overshadowed were secondary windows and the loss of light was within acceptable levels.

(10)     In response to Councillor Miller, the Legal Adviser stated that the trees which had been planted as screening were a material consideration as they were in place and it was in the gift of whoever occupied the neighbouring building whether they were retained or not.

Debate and decision making process

(11)     Councillor Theobald stated that the building had originally been of a reduced size to protect the established neighbouring house. She was not convinced that circumstances had changed and felt that the proposed extension would be overpowering for the neighbouring house.

(12)     Councillor Moonan stated that she agreed with Councillor Theobald that the new block would be overbearing as the applicant had increased the size of the proposed block compared to the two existing ones.

(13)     Councillor Miller stated that he felt the additional bulk on the side of the block closest to the neighbouring house was not acceptable. He also stated that he would like an additional condition added to increase the height of the screen on the terrace to two metres along the terrace if permission was granted.

(14)     A vote was taken and on a vote of 3 For and 9 Against with no abstentions planning permission was refused.

(15)     Councillor Moonan asked the Legal Adviser to clarify whether the adult with disabilities living the neighbouring house could be referenced as a ground to refuse.

(16)     The Legal Adviser stated that in order to cite the impact of the development on the neighbour’s disabled adult son as a reason for refusal the Committee would need to have evidence of the application’s impact on them. While the report took into account the equalities and safeguarding duties the Council had towards the individual it did not provide any evidence of harm to him that may be caused by the development.

(17)     In response to Councillor Miller, the Planning Transport Officer stated that the development currently had two unassigned parking bays which the new flats would be able to rent and the local controlled parking zone did not have a waiting list. Thus increased pressure on parking was not a significant issue.

(15)     Councillor Miller proposed that the application be refused planning permission on the grounds that:

1.    The building would be overbearing to established neighbours

2.    The building would overlook the neighbouring house and garden

3.    The design was not in keeping with the character of the surrounding area and would be damaging to the streetscene.

(16)     Councillor Bennett seconded the proposal.

(17)     A vote was taken on the proposed alternative recommendations. This was carried with Councillors Gilbey, Theobald, Bennett, Inkpin-Leissner, Littman, Miller, Moonan, Morris and Wealls in support (9) and Councillors Mac Cafferty, Platts and Cattell against (3) with no abstentions.

133.3  RESOLVED - That the Committee has taken into consideration the recommendation laid out in the report but resolves to REFUSE planning permission on the grounds proposed by Councillor Miller detailed in paragraph (15) above.