Agenda item - BH2018/01894- 1A Marmion Road, Hove- Full Planning

Application under S73a for variation of condition 2 of BH2015/01278 (Demolition of existing warehouse (B8) and erection of 4no two/ three storey residential dwellings (C3) and offices (B1).) (allowed on appeal) to allow amendments to the approved drawings (part retrospective.

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Ward Affected: Wish

              Application under S73a for variation of condition 2 of BH2015/01278 (Demolition of existing warehouse (B8) and erection of 4no two/ three storey residential dwellings (C3) and offices (B1).) (allowed on appeal) to allow amendments to the approved drawings (part retrospective).

              Officer Presentation

(1)          The Principal Planning Officer, Stewart Glassar, introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to photographs, site plans and elevational drawings detailing the proposed scheme.

(2)          It was noted that this represented an application under S73 a for variation of condition 2 of BH2015/0278 (allowed on appeal) to allow amendments to the approved drawings (part retrospective). The development had been constructed with various deviations from the approved plans. Following a Planning Enforcement investigation, the applicant was seeking to regularise those amendments. It had been explained by the applicant that there appeared to be a discrepancy between the Ordnance Survey and the topographical survey drawings in relation to the neighbouring property 1a Marmion Road in that the 1:200 block plan as taken from the O.S. map did not show the canopy or projecting bay window and rather, showed the house frontage flat on the forward line following its gable roof. This was considered to be a reasonable explanation and that any slight deviation (if any) was very minor and did not impact on the acceptability of the scheme in general and approval was therefore recommended.

              Public Speakers

(5)          Councillor Nemeth spoke in his capacity as a Local Ward Councillor setting out his objections to the proposed amendments to the scheme. Councillor Nemeth displayed photographs which in his view indicated that the development had not been built in compliance with the permission, and that what was now on site extended beyond the agreed footprint. In consequence the development was cramped and in consequence of that the trees originally proposed could not be accommodated and would not have survived. The development had been permitted on appeal and he did not feel that the requirements imposed by the Planning Inspector as a condition of grant of planning permission had been respected, which was very disappointing. For example use of yellow brick had been stipulated but the dwellings erected on site had been constructed of red brick.

(6)          The Democratic Services Officer, Penny Jennings had received a statement submitted on behalf of the applicants in support of their scheme. However, this was not read out to the Committee as Members decided to defer consideration of the application in the absence of the applicant/agent who having been unable to attend were unable to answer any questions they had relating to the present form of the development now erected on site.

              Questions of Officers

(7)          Councillor Bennett sought confirmation whether the dwellings were now occupied and Councillor Nemeth confirmed that he was aware that some of them were.

(8)          Councillor Littman, considered that it appeared that the buildings erected on site may have been located in too close proximity to the site boundaries and that the driveways were too long; it would be helpful for those matters to be clarified.

(9)          Councillor Miller stated that if the situation was as indicated it was regrettable that this had not been picked up an earlier stage. He was of the view that there would be merit in deferring further consideration of the application in order to assess whether what had been built on site complied with or contravened the conditions imposed by the Planning Inspector and whether/how any errors could be addressed.

(10)       Councillor Cattell, the Chair, stated that she was also minded to recommend that consideration of the application be deferred in order to ascertain whether the development had been built in accordance with the agreed plans and for members to have the opportunity to ask questions of the applicant/agent. The Legal Adviser to the Committee, Hilary Woodward, advised that if Members were of the view that they required additional information or for issues to be clarified in order to determine an application then it was appropriate for it to be deferred. It appeared that Members required clarification that what had been built accorded with the submitted plans. Councillor Cattell stated that in her view it would be beneficial to establish whether the footprint of the building had “shifted” and whether it had been erected in the correct position. It was important for the enforcement team to establish what had been approved by the Planning Inspector and to what extent the Ward Councillors assertions were correct regarding the scheme as built.

Decision to Defer Consideration of Application

(11)       Members had further discussions in consequence of which Members were in agreement that consideration of the application be deferred in order for a site visit to take place and for the Committee to be provided with greater clarity on whether the buildings have been built correctly.

(12)       Members also requested greater clarity regarding why the previous application had been refused and what the Inspector said in upholding the application on appeal with conditions. Also, greater detail regarding possible differences between what had been approved and what had been built, details of distances from edge of the pavement to the buildings (distance of car park area), the total length of the building and the total site length. Input by the Principal Planning Officer with responsibility for enforcement would also be beneficial.

(13)       A vote was taken and the 10 Members present when the vote was taken voted unanimously that consideration of the application be deferred pending resolution of the matters they had raised.

65.4       RESOLVED – That consideration of the above application be deferred in order to enable the matters raised and information sought by the Committee to be clarified and confirmed as set out above.

              Note: Councillors Inkpin – Leissner (who did not attend the Committee) and Mac Cafferty were not present at the meeting during consideration or voting in respect of the above application.