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

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

RECOMMENDATION - GRANT

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

Officer Introduction

(1)          The Principal Planning Officer, Gareth Giles, introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to plans, elevational drawings, photographs and floor plans. He stated that the main considerations in determining the application related to: the impact of the additional storey on the character and appearance of the building, adjacent locally listed factory building, the wider streetscene, the effect on the amenity of neighbouring residential occupiers, the standard of proposed accommodation, and transport and sustainability issues. The application had been deferred from the Committee meeting on 12 July 2017 to allow officers to clarify the position in respect of previous refusals and appeal decision. Officers had reconsidered the history of the site and negotiated amendments to the scheme.

(2)          The Planning Officer also stated that a letter from Peter Kyle MP had been received requesting that residents’ concerns regarding: the character of the area, privacy and the impact of the proposal on the locally listed sweet factory be taken into account.  The Highways Authority also recommended that an additional permit free condition should be added to the planning permission should permission be granted.

Public speakers

(3)          Councillor Nemeth spoke in his capacity as a Wish Ward Councillor and stated that the application had failed to address the issues with previous refused applications and residents had raised many of the same concerns. The existing building was already too large and did not suit the character of the area, bulk and height had been mentioned in the previous refusals. The application before the Committee today had been deferred by Committee in 2017 so that the applicant could produce additional images showing how the building would fit within the area which they had failed to do. The neighbouring building was a former Maynard’s factory which had been converted into residential units and was locally listed. The proposed addition of a fourth floor would be overbearing to the heritage asset and would cause significant harm to the streetscene.

(4)          In response to Councillor Marsh, Councillor Nemeth stated that he and Councillor Pelzer Dunn had canvased residents’ opinions on the scheme through door knocking and several meetings and they had found significant opposition to the scheme.

(5)          In response to Councillor Miller, Councillor Nemeth stated that he did not feel that the gap between the proposed fourth storey and the sweet factory sufficiently softened its impact. The third floor of 80a was higher than the roof line of the sweet factory and so dominated it in the streetscene. Any addition to this would only exacerbate the issue.

(6)          Mr Michael Pirrie spoke on behalf of the applicant as the architect for the scheme and clarified that Yelo Architects Ltd had not been involved in previous applications for the site. The previous applications were refused due to the Committee’s concerns around the loss of daylight and privacy for neighbours. The revised design now included obscured glazing on all windows overlooking neighbours and setting the fourth floor back from the street so as to make it less visible. He stated that as the proposal was only for the creation of a single new dwelling there would not be a significant impact on parking which was view supported by the transport officer in their comments.

(7)          In response to Councillor Wares, Mr Pirrie stated that there would be a slopping roof at the rear of the flat and residents would not be able to use it as a balcony. There was an existing terrace at the front of the building which was currently accessible and used as an emergency escape route.

(8)          In response to Councillor Miller, Mr Pirrie stated that he felt the proposed fourth storey was set far enough back form the street that it would not be visible from the ground and that a high fire wall on the roof of the sweet factory would also conceal it. The impact on the sweet factory and the wider street scene was thus very limited. Mr Pirrie also stated that he had not been aware of the request for the additional image showing the proposal in the wider context of the streetscene and would have been able to provide it.

(9)          In response to the Chair, Officers confirmed that the firewall on the roof of the sweet factory was taller than the proposed fourth storey.

Questions to the Planning Officer

(10)       In response to Councillor Miller, the Planning Manager clarified that a formal letter of objection had not been received from Councillor Nemeth and what was referenced in the report was an email he had sent stating his intention to object.

(11)       In response to Councillor Miller, the Planning Officer confirmed that the side window to one of the bedrooms would be blanked off subject to the final design for the neighbouring School Road site being submitted. The room would still be served by two windows to the rear.

(12)       In response to Councillor Wares, the Planning Officer stated that there would be space on the roof that could be used as a balcony but the condition restricting which part of the roof could be used as a balcony was legally binding. The Council would be able to take enforcement action if the roof was used as a balcony.

(13)       In response to Councillor Wares, the Transport Officer confirmed that he had recommended an additional permit free condition to the Committee.

(14)       In response to Councillor O’Quinn, Officers stated that the Council had not currently adopted local space standards but that it was being considered as part of the City Plan Part Two. Policy did state that a reasonable space standard should be achieved in order to protect the amenity of future residents.

(15)       In response to Councillor Inkpin-Leissner, Officers stated that 1.8m was the standard height for a privacy screen but they conceded that some people would still be able to see over the top and stated that members could require a higher screen be installed.

(16)       In response to Councillor Gilbey, the Planning Manger confirmed that the heritage officers had not commented on the application. She stated that this could be because the design had been deemed acceptable by the Planning Inspector at appeal for a previous application although the overall appeal was dismissed.

(17)       In response to Councillor Littman, the Planning Manager stated that it was open for Members to go against previous decisions if they felt there had been a substantial change in policy since those decisions had been taken.

Debate and decision making process

(18)       Councillor Miller stated that he was not comfortable with the application as he felt it would have a negative impact upon the existing residents in the building. He also had concerns about the relationship between the proposal and the approved development on School Road.

(19)       Councillor Littman felt that the proposal did meet the expectations set by CP12 Urban Design in the City Plan Part One that new developments should raise the standard of architecture in the area and establish a strong sense of place.

(20)       Councillor O’Quinn echoed the previous comments and stated that she could not see how the proposal would improve the area especially when keeping in mind the neighbouring locally listed building.

(21)       Councillor Wares stated he did not feel that the application was a meaningful improvement to the previously refused one and that it would not improve the area.

(22)       Councillor Inkpin-Leissner stated that while he was pleased that the applicant had taken steps to work with officers to improve the application he felt it was still contrary to Council Policy and would dominate the neighbouring locally listed heritage asset.

(23)       The Chair stated that she was not convinced the applicant had successful addressed the issues with previous applications.

(24)       On a vote of 1 For and 9 Against with no abstentions the Committee refused planning permission. 

(25)       Councillor Littman proposed that the application be refused on the following grounds:

1.         That the application failed to follow CP 12 in not establishing a strong sense of place or raising the standard of architecture and design in the city.

2.         That the proposed structure was of an inappropriate height, scale, bulk and design and would be overbearing to a locally listed building.

3.         That the application would have a negative impact on the visual amenity of neighbours.

(26)       Councillor Miller seconded the motion.

(27)       The Chair called a vote on the proposed alternative recommendations. This was carried with Councillors Gilbey, Inkpin-Leissner, Littman, Marsh, Miller, O’Quinn, Taylor, Wares and Cattell voting For and Councillor Page voting Against.

18.6    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 (25) above.