Agenda item - BH2018/01445 - Hove Rugby Football Club, Hove Recreation Ground, Shirley Drive - Full Planning

skip navigation and tools

Agenda item

BH2018/01445 - Hove Rugby Football Club, Hove Recreation Ground, Shirley Drive - Full Planning

Erection of single storey side and rear extension incorporating formation of first floor side balcony.

RECOMMENDATION - GRANT

Minutes:

Erection of single storey side and rear extension incorporating formation of first floor side balcony

 

(1)          The Chair noted that a request to speak had been received after the 5pm Friday deadline. The Chair also noted the requests to defer consideration of the application which had been made by a neighbour and the public questioner earlier. The Chair called a vote to defer the application. The Chair then asked those Members who had indicated that they wished to defer consideration of the application to suggest a ground on which the application could be deferred. When no grounds were proposed the Chair suggested that the Principle Planning Officer give a presentation.

 

            Officer Introduction

 

(2)          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 proposed development on the appearance and character of the building, surrounding streetscene and wider area, and the amenities of the neighbouring properties. 14 letters of objection were received objecting to the proposal.

 

Questions to the Planning Officer

 

(3)          In response to Councillor Gilbey, the Planning Officer stated that the application would not impact on any of the existing facilities at the club.

 

(4)          In response to Councillor Miller, Officers stated that the usual process for the public to make a representation at Committee was for them to contact the Clerk to the Committee to register by 5pm the Friday before the meeting. Objectors were only advised that an application was coming to committee if they had stated that they wished to address the Committee in their objection. Otherwise objectors were not contacted prior to an application being considered by Committee. Officers confirmed that the processed had been followed.

 

(5)          In response to Councillor Page, the Planning Officer confirmed that condition 2 referred to all usage of the balcony licensable or otherwise.

 

(6)          In response to Councillor O’Quinn, the Planning Officer stated that the balcony was around 60m2 and additional conditions could be added to restrict the brightness of any lighting.

 

(7)          The Transport Officer stated in response to Councillor O’Quinn that there was a lack of information about traffic impact in the application. However there was agreement that the area would come under a controlled parking zone following the first stage of consultation. The form of the parking controls was not yet known but it was proposed that the free street parking which ran alongside Hove Recreation Ground was to be retained. In this context the Planning Officer concluded that while the balcony may attract more visitors the impact on traffic was not likely to be severe.

 

(8)          Officers suggested that an additional condition requiring the applicant to put in place measures to restrict unsupervised access to the balcony in response to Councillor O’Quinn’s and Councillor Miller’s concerns about the potential of it attracting anti-social behaviour.

 

(9)          In response to Councillor Inkpin-Leissner, the Planning Officer stated that there was no proposed wheelchair access to the balcony.

 

Debate and decision making process

 

(10)       Councillor Miller stated that the proposal would provide a good facility for the rugby club and may encourage more participation in sport. The club house was a significant distance from the neighbouring properties and he felt that there would not be a significant additional impact on them. He stated that living next to a park was a privilege and it was unreasonable to expect it not to be used.

 

(11)       Councillor O’Quinn stated that while she did not object to the proposed extension to the interior of the club house she did not support the addition of the terrace. 

 

(12)       Councillor Taylor stated that it was regrettable the impact the application would have on the neighbours and that it was regrettable that they had not been able to address the Committee.

 

(13)       Councillor Page stated that Hove Rugby Football Club was a popular club which should be supported.  The clubhouse was a long way from neighbours especially when compared to other areas of the city and it there were noise complaints these should be dealt with through the appropriate Council team.

 

(14)       Officers confirmed that additional conditions requiring additional security to prevent access to the balcony and to limit the brightness of lighting would be added should permission be granted.

 

(15)       On a vote of 9 For with one abstention planning permission was granted.

 

31.10  RESOLVED: That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report below and resolves to GRANT planning permission subject to the Conditions and Informatives detailed in the report.

 

Supporting documents:

 


Brighton & Hove City Council | Hove Town Hall | Hove | BN3 3BQ | Tel: (01273) 290000 | Mail: info@brighton-hove.gov.uk | how to find us | comments & complaints