Agenda item - BH2018/01687- Garage North East of 28 Holland Mews, Hove- Full Planning

Demolition of exiting garage and erection of 1no two bedroom dwelling.

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Ward Affected: Brunswick & Adelaide

              Demolition of existing garage and erection of 1no two bedroom dwelling.

              Officer Presentation

(1)          The Principal Planning Officer, Stewart Glassar, introduced the application and gave a detailed presentation by reference to photographs, site plans and elevational drawings detailing the proposed scheme. It was noted that the application site related to a single storey garage in a predominantly residential street within the Brunswick Town Conservation Area. Although the building was not listed within its own right, it lay to the rear of 29 Lansdowne Place (listed grade II). The application sought planning permission for demolition of the existing garage and the erection of a two bedroom, three-storey dwelling with two rear dormers in the loft space. Although the roof space was indicated as use for storage it would be reasonable to assume that the addition of two rear dormers would enable its use as an additional bedroom, resulting in a three bedroom dwelling.

(2)          It was noted that the main considerations in determining this application related to the loss of the existing garage, the design of the proposed building and its impact on the character and appearance of the Brunswick Town Conservation Area, on neighbouring amenity, the standard of accommodation provided by the proposal and sustainability. The principle of redevelopment of the site had already been accepted by the Local Planning Authority when permission to erect a new building had been granted in 2016. There had been no changes in circumstance since that previous approval to indicate that the principle of a dwelling was no longer acceptable. The Heritage Team had confirmed that in their view the original historic fabric of the building had been lost when it had been converted to a garage in the 1920’s/30’s and that the historic significance of the garage had been negatively impacted as a result.

(3)          The proposal would result in replacement of a single storey building with a two storey building. However, it was not considered that the additional height of the building would result in any significant harm in terms of loss of light, outlook or an overbearing impact as it would adjoin buildings of a similar height and depth. The rear addition would be sufficiently screened from the properties to the south by the boundary wall. Given the height of the boundary as well as the fact that the bulk of the dwelling had been set back from the shared boundary, it was considered that any impact would not be significant, nor lead to loss of amenity. Whilst there would be some overlooking as some mutual overlooking already occurred within the immediate vicinity it was considered that there would no significant harm to the amenity of neighbouring properties, in addition, permitted development rights had been removed to protect neighbouring amenity/privacy and approval was therefore recommended.

              Questions of Officers

(4)          Councillor C Theobald asked if the proposed development would be located in the garden of the neighbouring house, also asking to see photographs of the neighbouring street scene in order to ascertain the appearance of those buildings with particular reference to the roof scape. In answer to further questions it was confirmed that although 29 Lansdowne Place was grade two listed this was not and fell outside its curtilage. Whilst it was understood that the existing building had once formed part of 29 Lansdown Place it had become separated from it some time ago and the parcel of land on which it stood was now completely detached from it.

(5)          Councillor Hyde asked for confirmation that approval was already in place for demolition of the existing building and it was confirmed that it was.

(6)          Mr Amarena, CAG, asked for clarification that this was the last remaining building of its period located in the Mews, asking to see photographs of it and the brickwork used in its the construction in the context of the other buildings located in Holland Mews. The Principal Planning Officer, Stewart Glassar, explained that as this building had become detached from the host building to which it had originally been subservient some time ago and had also been much altered a number of years previously it was not considered of sufficient merit to be retained as those earlier modifications had altered it such that its original appearance had been lost.

(7)          Councillor Miller sought further clarification in regard to the sub-division of the original plot with which the application site had been associated, enquiring whether the listing of the original host building could also include this one. The Legal Adviser to the Committee, Hilary Woodward, stated that was not the case as the application site was not within the building’s curtilage.

              Debate and Decision Making Process

(8)          Mr Amarena, CAG, re-iterated the objections received from CAG that this was the last remaining original coach house in Holland Mews which served to illustrate how this mews had once looked. Considering that it was unacceptable that there had been no effort to convert this fine example of equestrian architecture which would now be lost.

(9)          Councillor C Theobald stated that she considered the loss of this building was regrettable and that proposed to replace it was less in keeping with the neighbouring street scene.

(10)       Councillor Hyde was of the view that loss of the existing building had already been established by the earlier planning permission. Councillor Miller concurred in that view.

(11)       A vote was taken and the 5 Members who were present when the vote was taken voted 4 to 1 that planning permission be granted.

65.6       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 also set out in the report.

              Note: Councillors, Bennett, Daniel, Gilbey, Inkpin-Leissner (who did not attend the meeting), Mac Cafferty, O’Quinn and Robins were not present during discussion or voting in respect of the above application.