Agenda item - BH2018/02525 - 2 Sackville Gardens, Hove - Full Planning

Demolition of existing garage and erection of 1no semi-detached two storey dwelling house (C3).

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE

Ward Affected: Westbourne

              Demolition of existing garage and erection of 1no semi-detached three storey dwelling house (C3).

(1)          It was noted that this application had formed the subject of a Site Visit prior to the meeting.

              Officer Presentation

(2)          The Principal Planning Officer, Maria Seale, introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to photographs, site plans and elevational drawings detailing the proposed scheme. It was noted that in addition to the letter of support received from Councillor Cobb that a letter of support had also been received from Councillor Bewick, attached to the Late/Additional Representations List.

(3)          It was noted that the main considerations in determining the application related to the principle of the development, the impact of the proposal on the Sackville Gardens Conservation Area and the standard of accommodation the proposed dwelling would provide; the impact on neighbouring amenity, transport and sustainability were also material considerations. The existing buildings on the application site formed a uniform semi-detached pair of buff coloured brick dwelling houses with large projecting gables, modest dormers, projecting bays and central entrances underneath a portico and made a positive contribution to the street and conservation areas with their retention of original architectural features. Due to its height, design and narrow footprint compared to other buildings in Sackville Gardens, the proposed dwelling would appear as a large side extension and would interrupt the important uniformity and rhythm of the semi-detached pairs in the street and in consequence would cause significant harm to the streetscape and surrounding conservation area. The proposed form of development was contrary to the Local Plan and therefore by reason of its height and constrained footprint, was considered to represent an incongruous addition to the street scene which would cause unacceptable harm to the Sackville Gardens conservation area and refusal was therefore recommended.

              Public Speakers

(4)          Mr Henderson, the applicant, spoke in support of his application stating that he disagreed with the officer view that the proposed development was at variance with the street scene. Whilst there were blocks of semi-detached buildings to one side, the proposed development would be at the end of the row, the buildings on the other side of the highway were taller and of a differing scale and on that basis he contended that the development would not be out of keeping. Thought had been given to its scale and design to seek to ensure that it was sympathetic.

              Questions of Officers

(5)          Councillor Littman sought confirmation as to whether the proposed development would be of two or three storeys in height and it was confirmed that it would be two storeys with a bedroom located in the roof space.

(6)          Councillor Moonan referred to the fact that the development would provide another dwelling seeking confirmation regarding what could be acceptable at that location. It was confirmed that a development which did not unbalance the uniformity of the street scene could be considered acceptable.

              Debate and Decision Making Process

(7)          Councillor Miller stated that a proposal for a modest modern building would be more appropriate and would not compromise the street scene.

(8)          Councillor C Theobald stated that she considered that “harm” had already occurred in consequence of the large neighbouring development

(9)          Councillor Hyde stated that she considered the proposed development would be totally out of place and was far too narrow when viewed in the context of the neighbouring dwellings. It reminded her of a similar development in Saltdean which she had also considered was unacceptable.

(10)       Councillor Littman also agreed that this addition, at variance with the neighbouring mirror pairs of dwellings would be out of keeping.

(11)       Councillor Morgan was in agreement that the proposed dwelling was very narrow when viewed in relation to its neighbours. Councillor Gilbey concurred in that view considering that the proposal would be too cramped and that the proposed fenestration would also be inappropriate.

(12)       Councillor Mac Cafferty was of the view that damage had already occurred due to development which had already been permitted, he did not consider that this would result in any greater harm and on that basis he considered the proposal was acceptable.

(13)       Councillor Moonan stated that on balance she considered the scheme was acceptable as did Councillor O’Quinn who considered that this would represent an improvement on the existing garage.

(14)       The Chair, Councillor Cattell stated that she considered the appearance of the proposed scheme would spoil the rhythm of the existing building line and would be out of character with the neighbouring street scene.

(15)       A vote was taken and the 11 Members of the Committee - who were present when the vote was taken voted on a vote of 6 to 5 with no abstentions that Planning Permission be refused.

77.5       RESOLVED - That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report and resolves to REFUSE planning permission for the reasons also set out in the report.