Agenda item - BH2017/02869,10 Shirley Drive, Hove- Outline Planning Application

Outline application with some matters reserved for the demolition of existing house and erection of 10no flats with associated parking (C3).

RECOMMNDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

Ward Affected:Hove Park

              Outline application with some matters reserved for the demolition of existing house and erection of 10 no flats with associated parking.

              Officer Presentation

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

(2)          The Principal Planning Officer, Gareth Giles, introduced the report and gave a presentation by reference to site plans, elevational drawings, photographs and floor plans. It was noted that the application related to a substantial detached property located on the western side of Shirley Drive at the junction of the Droveway with the site itself sloping down from east to west. Matters of appearance and landscaping were reserved and therefore the considerations in determining this application related to access, layout and scale of the 10 flats proposed (4x one bed, 5x two bed and 1x three bed) with associated parking on the site. Reserved matters of design and landscaping had not been considered in detail other than to confirm that the quantum of development sought could be realistically accommodated on site. The DVS had been approached and had concluded that the scheme was unviable and could not provide an Affordable Housing contribution. The property most likely to be impacted would be 12 Shirley Drive on the adjoining site to the North. Although the views would be identical to the existing situation it was acknowledged that the increase in the number of units could result in a real and perceived intensification of overlooking of neighbouring properties.

(3)          In view of the distances involved and good size of the neighbouring gardens it was considered that the development could be designed to limit impact and given that the proposed development would not be dissimilar in terms of footprint, scale and height to the existing building it was considered that the proposal would be unlikely to cause significant harm to neighbouring amenity through loss of light, outlook or overbearing impact, in view of the amount of construction proposed in close proximity to local residents a Demolition Management Plan and Construction Environmental Management Plan were recommended via condition and on that basis minded to grant planning permission was recommended.

Public Speakers

(4)          Mr Jungius spoke on behalf of neighbouring residents setting out their objections to the scheme.  He stated that the application was out of character with the surrounding area which was dominated by single occupancy housing. The house could be converted to flats within the current external configuration as had been done in other instances nearby but the bulk of the structure proposed in the application would dwarf the nearby buildings. There would also be a significant loss of amenity to the immediate neighbour caused by overlooking and the additional parking and associated vehicle access at the rear of the building. Mr Jungius felt that the impact of the development would be unacceptable especially in light of the fact that the Applicant did not intend to provide any affordable housing.

(5)          Councillor Brown spoke in her capacity as a Local Ward Councillor setting out her objections to the scheme. She stated that if permission were granted the application would set a precedent for more single occupant homes in the area to be converted into blocks of flats. This would completely change the character of the neighbourhood. Councillor Brown was also concerned that the larger envelope proposed would lead to a significant loss of light for the neighbouring houses as well as cause overlooking. The work to build the new proposed access at 3m below street level may also cause damage to the foundations of 12 Shirley Drive. Councillor Brown felt that there were too many unresolved issues with the application for the Committee to be able to grant permission.

(6)          Mr Bateman spoke on behalf of the applicant in support of their application. He stated that the application represented a detached house replacing a detached house. There had been no professional objections to the application and Hove Civic Society had supported it. The property was currently a seven bedroom single occupancy house which did not match demand in the city. The application proposed ten new flats of between one and three bedrooms which reflected demand in the city. The Application would create a mixed community in the road an outcome which was considered desirable by Planning Policy. The proposal was broadly the same size and bulk as the existing property and construction would not cause any damage to neighbouring buildings as the access would be utilising an existing basement.

(7)          In response to Councillor Miller, Mr Batemen stated that it was not financially viable to provide affordable housing as part of the scheme, a view which had been supported by the District Valuer. He also stated that converting the existing structure would increase the cost of construction and reduce the number of units and so would also not allow for any units of affordable housing.

              Questions for Officers

(8)          In response to Councillor Hyde, the Planning Officer stated that the proposed outline of the new structure would be substantially wider to the south and slightly wider to the north. The overall width of the proposed block was broadly within the outline of the existing structure.

(9)          In response to Councillor Miller, the Planning Officer stated that there was no requirement for the new development to stay within the existing envelope. The Planning Officer’s assessment of the proposal was that the indicative outline sat comfortably within that of the existing house.

(10)       In response to Councillors Inkpin-Leissner and Hyde, the Planning Officer stated that any designs presented were just to demonstrate the proposed size and bulk of the scheme and that Officers would provide further advice to the Applicants to encourage them to bring forward a design that was sympathetic to the surrounding area. The Planning Officer also stated that the design would be considered by Committee as a separate application.

(11)       In response to Councillor Gilbey, the Planning Officer stated that the proposed building would remain on the existing building line but would extend further into the back garden.

(12)       Councillor Bennett noted that the proposals significantly reduced the outside space and asked officers if there was a minimum amount of outdoor amenity that would be expected for ten units.

(13)       The Planning Officer stated that the existing house did not have a large amount of garden space and that additional outside amenity space could be provided by balconies and terraces which would be a consideration when designs were brought forward.

(14)       In response to Councillor Theobald, the Planning Officer stated that the proposal was the same height as the existing structure.

              Debate and Decision Making Process

(15)       Councillor Bennett stated that she was not minded to support the officer’s recommendations. The application proposed a modern block in an area characterised by detached houses. Where there were apartments the existing houses had been converted and so the character of the area had been maintained. The new building would be prominent on the street as it was a corner plot exacerbating the damage to the character of the area. 12 Shirley Drive would also be significantly affected by the increased noise of additional cars and the loss of light and the Applicant did not propose to provide any affordable housing.

(16)       Councillor Miller stated that the existing building was already dominant on the street and that to grant permission for a larger building would cause a significant loss of amenity for number 12 Shirley Drive and would have a negative impact on the streetscene. Councillor Miller also stated that he was sceptical about the claim that providing any affordable housing would make the scheme unviable.

(17)       Councillor Littman stated that given the current pressure on housing in the city it would be necessary to consider sites in the city where higher density housing could be accommodated. However the current policy around maintaining the character of an area was clear. The application did not show any exceptional circumstances which would justify allowing a scheme so out of character with the area especially given the lack of affordable housing.

(18)       Councillor Morris stated that he was happy with the Outline Application but was keen to see the Applicants return with a design which was sympathetic to the streetscene.

(19)       Councillor Mac Cafferty stated that the site was not in a conservation area or an area of special interest. The streetscene was characterised by an inconsistent building line and houses of various size and bulk. He felt that the proposal complemented the non-uniformity of the area.

(20)       Councillor Hyde stated that her primary concern was that granting permission would set a precedent for similar higher density schemes which would completely transform an area characterised by large detached properties in spacious gardens. She felt that there were too many unknowns to grant permission and would have preferred to see a full application.

(21)       Councillor Inkpin-Leissner stated that the property was not in a conservation area and there was enough space on the plot for the development. There was an opportunity to gain nine additional units of accommodation for the city and with the right design there would be minimal harm to the street scene.

(22)       The Chair stated that it was a difficult application to consider as an outline application left a lot of unknowns. She was concerned about the proposed bulk of the scheme but felt that it was difficult to fully assess the impact of the development without any designs.

(23)       A vote was taken and on a vote of 5 for to 7 Against with no abstentions the office recommendation to grant was not carried.

(24)       In response to Councillor Bennett, Officers clarified that as the Committee was considering an Outline Planning Application it would be difficult to justify refusing the application on the grounds that it was out of character with the area as there were no plans being considered. National Planning Policy would define both the existing and proposed structures as residential and took a favourable view on applications which provided mixed housing in an area.

(25)       Councillor Bennett proposed that the application be refused planning permission on the following grounds:

1.       Loss of amenity to 12 Shirley Drive due to car parking noise and disturbance.

2.       Overdevelopment of the plot based on the scale and bulk of the outline

(26)       Councillor Theobald seconded the motion.

(27)       The Legal adviser suggested to the Committee that they authorise Planning Manager to agree a Section 106 obligation on the grounds set out in the report should the application be subject to an appeal.

(28)       The Chair called a vote on the proposed alternative recommendations. This was carried with Councillors Gilbey, Theobald, Bennett, Hyde, Littman, Miller, Morris and Platts voting For, Councillors Cattell, Mac Cafferty, Inkpin-Leissner and Morgan voting Against with no abstentions.

18.3       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 Bennett detailed in paragraph (25) above but to authorise a s106 Planning Obligation as set out in paragraph (27) above.