Agenda item - BH2017/03152, 39 Dyke Road Avenue, Hove Full Planning

Erection of part one part two storey rear extension to facilitate three new blocks on existing care home.

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Ward Affected: Hove Park

              Erection of part one part two storey rear extension to facilitate three new blocks on existing care home.

              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, Jonathan Puplett, introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to plans, elevational drawings, photographs and floor plans. The application related to a large two-storey property currently in use as a 22 bed care home for the elderly. The building was situated in the Tongdean Conservation Area and the plot was subject to a Tree Protection Order. Permission was sought for erection of a part two, part one-storey rear extension to form three new blocks on the existing care home. The proposed extension would facilitate 13 new bedrooms in the building. The main considerations relating to the application were the principle of the development, the design and appearance of the proposal on the surrounding Conservation Area, the impact of the extension upon neighbouring amenity, the standard of accommodation proposed, the impact on trees and wildlife and transport issues.

(3)          The Arboriculture Officer had recommended several conditions to mitigate the impact of the development on surrounding trees including tree protection fencing and supervision during the construction process. The material planning considerations relating to the proposal had been fully assessed and potential harm which could be caused by the development in terms of its visual impact, impact on neighbouring amenity and impact on protected trees had been acknowledged. However, the proposal would provide thirteen additional bedrooms which would help to ensure the ongoing viability of an established nursing home providing essential care for the elderly. It was therefore considered that the public benefit of the proposal would outweigh any harm identified and the application was therefore recommended for approval subject to conditions.

              Questions for Officers

(4)          Councillor Bennett questioned whether the Planning Officer would have taken the same view on the application if it was a householder application given its size and that it was in a conservation area.

(5)          The Planning Officer responded that he took into account the nature of the accommodation when making a recommendation to Committee and that a householder application would change the nature of the application.   

(6)          Councillor Littman stated that extensions were meant to be subsidiary to the main building and was unsure if what was proposed would be.

(7)          The Planning Officer responded that in architectural terms the proposed addition would read as a rear wing due to the arrangement of the building but it was of considerable size.

(8)          In response to Councillor Hyde, the Planning Officer stated that the properties on Chalfont Drive would have a back to back arrangement with the proposed extension with a significant distance between the buildings. There was screening and an access road between the proposed extension and other neighbours.

(9)          Councillor Theobald stated that she was concerned about the additional light pollution caused by the extension as the nursing home currently left internal lights in common areas on all night and the impact of this on neighbours would be increased by a two storey structure.

(10)       The Planning Officer stated that the spacing between the neighbours and the proposed extension was acceptable and that the use of internal lights may be something that was outside of the Committee’s control.

(11)       Councillor Morris noted that the existing building provided 22 bed spaces and the extension would facilitate a further 13 bedrooms. He asked Officers to clarify if bedrooms and bed spaces were the same in the context of the application.

(12)       The Planning Officer apologised for the inconsistent language in the application and stated that he couldn’t confirm if bed spaces and bedrooms referred to the same thing in this context.  

              Debate and Decision Making Process

(13)       Councillor Gilbey stated that given the back to back arrangement and the space between the extension and neighbouring properties she felt the proposal was acceptable. The harm caused to neighbours would be the loss of a view not loss of light.

(14)       Councillor Theobald stated that the extension was too large to be considered as subsidiary to the main house and she was particularly concerned by the two storey element of the proposal.

(15)       Councillor Littman stated that it was a difficult application to determine as the city needed additional care home and nursing home capacity. However the proposal put a lot of trees at risk and was a large addition to the existing house which was not subsidiary.

(16)       Councillor Hyde felt a two storey extension would look too much like a back garden development which wasn’t acceptable in a conservation area.

(17)       Councillor Morris noted the Heritage Officer’s comments that the extension would significantly alter the character of the building and he was concerned about the bulk of the proposal.

(18)       In response to the Chair, the Planning Officer clarified that although the Heritage Officer’s comments showed that they felt that the extension would cause harm to the conservation area this harm was ‘less than substantial’. Where harm was less than substantial it was weighed against the public benefit of the proposal. In the case of the application the Planning Officer felt that the benefit of increased care home capacity in the city outweighed the harm to the conservation area.

(19)       Councillor Inkpin-Leissner stated that the development would provide a vital public service and was hidden from the public realm and so he would be supporting it.

(20)       Councillor Bennett stated that she was not minded to support the application as it was a very large development in the conservation area.

(21)       A vote was taken and on a vote of 4 for to 5 Against with 1 abstention the officer recommendation to grant planning permission was not carried.

(22)       Councillor Littman proposed that the application be refused planning permission on the following grounds:

1.    Overdevelopment which was inappropriate in a conversation area characterised by large plots with trees.

2.    Extension was not subservient to the existing building

3.    Adverse impact on established trees

4.    Overall the benefits of the scheme did not outweigh the harm

(23)       Councillor Bennett seconded the motion.

(24)       The Chair called a vote on the proposed alternative recommendations which was carried with Councillors; Theobald, Bennett, Hyde, Littman, Miller and Morris voting For and Councillors; Gilbey, Cattell, Inkpin-Leissner, and Platts voting against with no abstentions.

18.11    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 Littman detailed in paragraph (22) above.

Note: Councillors Mac Cafferty and Morgan were not present for the consideration of the item.