Agenda item - BH2017/04220 - 14 Tongdean Road, Hove - Full Planning

Demolition of existing bungalow and erection of new building comprising of three 2no bedroom flats and one 3no bedroom maisonette.

Recommendation - Grant

Demolition of existing bungalow and erection of new building comprising of three 2no bedroom flats and one 3no bedroom maisonette.

(1)       The application was the subject of a site visit prior to the meeting.

Introduction from Planning Officer

(2)       The Senior Planning Officer, Luke Austin, 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 scheme on the character of the Tongdean Conservation Area with the scheme having a more modern appearance and including materials that were not common within the surrounding conservation area being balanced against the three additional residential units provided which would help meet the housing shortfall in the city.

(3)          The Planning Officer stated that the recommendation was now to ‘Grant’ planning permission as the re-consultation period had expired. He also recommended an additional condition to the Committee to specify the height of the building/ land levels.

Public Speakers

(4)          Edward Ainsworth spoke in objection to the application as a local resident. He stated that the proposed scheme was an overdevelopment of the site, would overshadow neighbouring gardens and would provide unacceptably close views of neighbours. He stated that the scheme was widely opposed by residents because of the dangerous precedent which would be set for further blocks of flats to be built in a conservation area characterised by single occupancy detached houses in large plots. He stated that the scheme was directly in contradiction to section 2.1, 2.2, 4.4 and 5.1 of the character statement. The application would also cause increased traffic congestion and make it more dangerous to cross the road at an already often crowded junction.

(5)          In response to Councillor O’Quinn, Edward Ainsworth stated that there were no similar properties on the road.

(6)          In response to Councillor Miller, Edward Ainsworth stated that the residents did not object to the principle of developing the plot but any development should reflect the size and scale of the neighbouring properties and the conservation area in general.

(7)          Councillor Brown spoke in objection to the application as a local ward councillor. She stated that residents’ main concern about the scheme was that the precedent set by granting approval would very quickly alter the character of the conservation area. She did not object to the principle of developing flats and higher density accommodation in general in the ward; 800 homes were to be built on the Toads Hole Valley site just outside the ward. However the proposal was an unsuitable overdevelopment of the site which would cause loss of privacy to residents. The two previous applications have been refused, one of which had also been dismissed at appeal. Councillor Brown stated that the current scheme was much worse than the previous schemes and should be dismissed.

(8)          Andy Parsons spoke on behalf of the applicant. He stated that contrary to the residents’ reports there was generally not an issue with parking on the road; the original scheme had proposed more car parking spaces but this was reduced to six at the request of Officers. The applicant intended to live in one of the apartments himself with his family living in the other apartments. The existing building was the only bungalow in the street and was out of context with the streetscene. The proposal was designed to look like a house and tried to mirror the context of the street. There was also a dense tree screen between the proposal and neighbouring property.

(9)          In response to the Chair, Andy Parsons stated that during the pre-application consultation heritage officers had stressed presenting a design in keeping with the size and scale of the street but were not concerned about whether the proposal was a single family dwelling or flats.

Questions to the Planning Officer

(10)       In response to Councillor Theobald, the Planning Officer confirmed the colour of the materials proposed and that the scheme was roughly in line with the property line at the front and back.

(11)       In response to the Chair and Councillor Miller, the Planning Officer confirmed that the footprint of the proposed scheme was increased form the existing footprint and that while the existing single storey projection was being reduced the entire proposal was two storeys.

(12)       In response to Councillor Wealls, the Planning Officer stated that while the street was made up of mostly white rendered housing the heritage officers felt that a brick finish was more in keeping with the traditional appearance of houses in the conservation area.

(13)       In response to Councillor Moonan, the Planning Officer stated that the proposed first storey bedroom windows would overlook the neighbouring garden.

(14)       In response to Councillor Moonan, the Planning Officer stated that the neighbouring house at 16 Tongdean Road had been redeveloped from a single occupancy house into two flats but the Planning Officer did not know of any other flatted developments in the road.

(15)       Councillor Miller noted that the second storey had a double heighted gable providing an atrium. He asked if officer had considered requesting this be lowered to reduce the size of the development without reducing the accommodation provided.

(16)       The Planning Officer stated that the gable style roof was in keeping with the character of the area and that the Planning Inspector had found the roof on the previously refused application acceptable which was of a similar height.

(17)       In response to Councillor Morgan, the Planning Officer stated that although the applicant’s agent had presented the proposal as being for the owner there was nothing to prevent the developer selling on the apartments when completed.

(18)       In response to Councillor Gilbey, the Planning Officer stated that the colour of the roof tiles was not specified but materials would be secured by condition.

(19)       In response to Councillor O’Quinn, the Planning Officer stated that they did not know the exact size of each flat but all four exceed minimum size standards.

(20)       In response to the Chair’s suggestion that windows overlooking the neighbouring property be obscurely glazed, the Planning Officer stated that the two first floor windows served single aspect bedrooms and so could not be obscurely glazed. There was a bathroom window which overlooked the neighbour’s garden which the Committee could condition to be obscurely glazed.  Officers also confirmed that there was a 15m gap between the neighbour’s window and the proposed first floor windows and that there were only views from an oblique angle. 

Debate and decision making process

(21)       Councillor Moonan stated that she felt the design was proportionate and in keeping with the conservation area. The principle of flatted developments had already been established by the neighbouring property and that any overlooking would be minimal.

(22)       Councillor Theobald stated that the development was in a conservation area with no other flats in the road. The neighbouring property had an addition and was not obviously flats from its external appearance. The design was three storeys in a road of two storey properties and it would have a negative impact on neighbouring amenity. The scheme was an overdevelopment and out of keeping with the streetscene. Councillor Theobald felt that granting permission would set a damaging precedent for the area.

(23)       Councillor Hyde stated that she felt officers were putting too much emphasis on the shortfall of 200 units of accommodation over five years and this was leading them to recommend granting permission to a development that would otherwise not be acceptable. The Tongdean Conservation Area was not the place to demolish family homes and certainly not to build flats in their place. The application would intensify the use of the site and would increase the number of cars and increase pressure on parking. There would be a loss of amenity of the gardens for neighbouring properties as the development would create a sense of overlooking and enclosure.  16 Tongdean Road was two flats built inside the footprint of an existing house and was not obviously a flatted development and did thus not set a precedent for flats on the scale of the proposal. Councillor Hyde stated that that application should be refused and that the applicant should look back at the previously refused smaller design and return with an application for a single use property.

(24)       Councillor Miller stated that he was not against the principle of more development on the site but felt that the proposed design was bulky and out of keeping with the area and he could not support it. The design would overlook neighbouring gardens an issue which could not be addressed with obscure glazing. He felt that the proposal would have a negative impact on the conservation area. He also felt that it was contrary to CP9 and failed to provide adequate parking which would impact the setting of the conservation area. He suggested that the applicant could return with a smaller, less bulky design which could be achieved by reducing the double heighted second storey.

(25)       Councillor O’Quinn stated that she knew the area well and agreed with the previous criticisms of the scheme; particularly that the scheme was too bulky. She stated that the additional accommodation provided would be out of the price range of most people wanting to buy or rent in the city and did not outweigh the harm the scheme would cause to the conservation area.

(26)       Councillor Mac Cafferty stated he did not agree with the objections that had been raised and was more inclined to agree with Councillor Moonan’s comments. The reality was that the existing buildings had been overlooking 14 Tongdean Road since they were built. The character statement for the conservation area already noted that the ‘design elements in the area were more diverse and the architecture less authentic’.

(27)       The Chair stated that she found it hard to say that what was proposed would result in substantial loss of amenity and the design seemed more in keeping with the area than some of the surrounding buildings. She stated that she agreed with Councillor O’Quinn that the application would not particularly help with the housing supply in the city but Heritage Officers had raised no concerns about the design.

(28)       The Chair called a vote which was tied with 5 For, 5 Against with 1 abstention. The Chair cast her second vote in favour of the Officer recommendation and the Committee resolved to Grant planning permission.

(29)       Councillor Miller proposed that an additional condition be added to the permission, as had been suggested in the debate, requiring that the ground floor bathroom and side facing lounge windows be obscurely glazed in perpetuity to prevent overlooking of number 58.

(30)       The Chair seconded the motion.

(31)       Councillor Moonan stated that she did not see the need for the additional glazing as there was sufficient screening between the two properties. She felt that obscurely glazing the living room windows would have a substantial detrimental impact on the amenity of the occupants which outweighed any potential privacy gained by the neighbours.

(32)       Councillor Miller stated that although sufficient screening may have been present at the site currently there was no way to guarantee that future occupants would maintain this.  

(33)       On a vote of 8 For, 2 Against with 1 abstention the Committee resolved to add the additional condition proposed by Councillor Miller.

(34)       RESOLVED: That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report and resolves to GRANT planning permission subject to the Conditions and Informatives set out in the report and the additional condition detailed above in paragraph (29).