Agenda item - BH2018/03117 - 9 The Upper Drive, Hove -Full Planning

First and second floor extensions to enlarge existing first floor flat and create 2no flats at second and third floor level, with associated parking.

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Ward Affected: Goldsmid

              First and second floor extensions to enlarge existing first floor flat and create 2no flats at second and third floor level, with associated parking.

              Officer Presentation

(1)          The Principal Planning Officer, Jonathan Puplett, introduced the report and gave a presentation detailing the proposed scheme by reference to site plans elevational drawings and photographs. It was noted that the application related to a part two, part three storey block of 4no. two-bed flats and 1no. one-bed flat on the northern side of The Upper Drive. The block was one of 5 similar blocks on a wider site providing a total of 41 flats. The existing blocks varied in height between three and four storeys. The three blocks to the west of the application site are finished in a mix of render and timber cladding. The application building was finished in mainly painted render with some minor timber clad detailing.

(2)          It was noted that the main considerations in determining this application related to the impact of the development on the character and appearance of the existing building, site, and street scene, the impact on residential amenity, the standard of accommodation provided and highways and sustainability. The proposed extensions to accommodate the additional two units would result in a block which would now be almost identical in terms of scale and appearance to the adjoining blocks to the west. Given the distances between the application site and its neighbours, it was considered that the increased height of the block would not appear out of context with the neighbouring properties or within the prevailing street scene. It was noted that in recent years this stretch of the Upper Drive has been developed to such an extent that most of the properties on this section of the northern side were flatted development with fewer traditional dwelling houses remaining. The proposed works would match the design and appearance of Block D and a condition is recommended to ensure that the proposed materials match the existing property. Accordingly, it was considered that the works were appropriate in terms of the impact upon the host building and the wider street scene. Subject to the conditions set out in the report I was considered that the development had overcome the previous reasons for refusal and was appropriate in terms of design, scale and impact on amenity and would provide two new dwellings of an acceptable size and standard; approval was therefore recommended.

              Questions of Officers

(3)          Councillor Miller requested clarification of details appertaining to the roof plan and confirmation as to whether/how the patio area could be accessed, whether obscure glazing was proposed to the balcony area and the heights of the proposed scheme; stating that he believed that heights of 3 and 4 storeys had been proposed previously and that they would now be of 2 and 3.

(4)          Councillor Mac Cafferty enquired whether precise details of the treatments and finishes proposed had been submitted. Councillor Mac Cafferty referred to other developments where materials used had not been treated and maintained appropriately and his had had a detrimental impact on the exterior appearance of the building in a relatively short time, referring to several recent developments which were covered in lichen. Treatments were available to address this for example by using a sealed render or timber which had been treated with pressurised water and air. Councillor Mac Cafferty also asked for clarification of the enforcement powers available to the local planning authority (LPA).

(5)          The Principal Planning Officer, Jonathan Puplett, explained that the LPA had powers to ensure that buildings were properly maintained and that such issues were remedied.

(6)          Councillor Robins stated that a number of treatments were available and a number of those which were marketed as being maintenance free were not fit for purpose in that they were silicone based and the mould adhered to the surface.

(7)          Councillor Inkpin-Leissner asked whether it was envisaged that there would be significant overlooking from the balcony area and it was confirmed that the distances involved were such that there would not.

              Debate and Decision Making Process

(8)          Councillor O’Quinn stated that she considered that the report contained an error in that the site was located in a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ), also enquiring regarding anticipated levels of increased parking/displacement which could result. The Development and Transport Assessment Manager, David Farnham, confirmed that the site was located within a CPZ and that whilst that error needed to be addressed, the level of parking available was consistent with local parking demand and was therefore considered acceptable.

(9)          Councillor O’Quinn stated that she was aware within her own ward of the additional pressures created new/additional developments generated increased parking demand to the detriment of existing residents and visitors. Councillor O’Quinn did not feel able to support the proposed scheme, there had been in her view, an increase in such form of development increasing the size of a by adding additional units on top of existing buildings was overdevelopment by stealth.

(10)       Councillor Hyde stated that in her view the current application represented a significant improvement on the previously refused scheme and she was able to support it.

(11)       Councillor Miller concurred stating that he was in agreement that the previous grounds for refusal had been overcome.

(12)       Councillor Inkpin-Leissner considered that this represented an improved application which he could support, notwithstanding that he considered it was important to ensure that suitable materials and finishes were used.

(13)       Councillor Mac Cafferty stated that he had considered the previously refused application to be acceptable and would therefore also be voting in support of the current amended scheme.

(14)       Councillor Phillips considered that this was a good scheme which had addressed the previous grounds for refusal.

(15)       A vote was taken and on a vote of 10 to 1 planning permission was granted

89.3       RESOVED – 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.