Agenda item - BH2018/03174, - 37 Clarke Avenue, Hove - Full Planning

Installation of disabled access ramp from pavement to front elevation of property. (Retrospective)

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Ward Affected: Hangleton & Knoll

              Installation of disabled access ramp from pavement to front elevation of property (Retrospective)

              Officer Presentation

(1)          The Principal Planning Officer, Stewart Glassar, introduced the application and gave a detailed presentation by reference to site plans, photographs and elevational drawings detailing the scheme. It was explained that the application site was a two-storey semi-detached dwelling house on the south side of Clarke Avenue. Retrospective planning permission was being sought for the erection of an access ramp leading from the public highway to the front door of the application site, with an associated hand-rail.

(2)          It was noted that the main considerations in the determination of this application related to the impact of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host building and wider street scene, as well as the potential impact on the amenities of local residents. Also of consideration would be the improved access afforded by the ramp for those with mobility-related disabilities and the potential impact on archaeological remains. Although it was recognised that there would be harm to the wider street scene due to the scale of the handrail and modest loss of green-space, it was not considered severe enough to warrant refusal and the suggestion of a condition tying the presence of the ramp to the presence of the current occupant of No.37 was supported, successfully mitigating the harm to an acceptable level. Given that the works had already been carried out it had not been possible to fully assess the potential impact they may have had on archaeological remains. This scheme was considered acceptable however given the modest area of land developed and the fact that the design had not required any deep excavation works. Concerns had been expressed that works had been carried out without consulting local residents. Consultation had been carried out as part of this planning application and the fact that the applicant had sought retrospective planning permission had not been weighed against them as part of this assessment. The fact that this application had only come in due to a complaint being lodged to the Local Planning Authority had also not be weighed against the applicant. Concerns had also been reported that previous attempts to purchase areas of the green space to convert to a hardstanding have been rejected by the Council. This application had been weighed on its own merits and it was considered that the proposal had far less of a visual impact than would a hardstanding in front of a similar property in the street scene.

(3)          It was considered that adequate information had been submitted in order to enable the application to be assessed and a decision taken. The works carried out would offer improved level access for the current occupant and it was considered that this benefit would outweigh the moderate harm to the character of the street scene. A condition was also recommended limiting the presence of the ramp and on that basis the works were considered to be acceptable and approval was therefore recommended.

              Debate and Decision Making Process

(4)          It was noted that Officers from the Housing Adaptations Team were present and the Chair, Councillor Cattell, sought clarification regarding why prior planning approval to carry out the works had not been sought and it was explained that although compliance with Building Control Regulations had been sought, the applicants had been unaware that planning permission was also required. The Chair stated that she hoped that in future this could be checked in advance of works being undertaken. In answer to further questions by the Chair it was explained that works had been carried out in order to meet the specific needs of the occupant to a specification required by the occupational therapy team.

(5)          Councillor Hyde sought confirmation that the land on which the ramp had been placed was located directly in front of no 37 Clarke Avenue and the status of that land. Councillor Gilbey also enquired regarding the status of this land and it was confirmed that it maintained by the council for general amenity but was not designated for other purpose, for instance as a play space.

(6)          Councillor C Theobald asked whether a double handrail was proposed, also referring to the hand rail and ramp which could be observed in front  of  a similar property nearby which appeared to be of similar construction and appearance.

(7)          The Chair stated that she did not consider it appropriate for any permission granted to be automatically removed once the property was vacated by the current applicant as a future tenant might be allocated to the property on the basis of adaptations which had been made to it including this exterior ramp. The Chair therefore recommended that Condition 2 be removed in the event that planning permission was granted.

(8)          A vote was taken and the 6 Members present when the vote was taken voted by 5 with 1 abstention that planning permission be granted subject to the removal of Condition 2.

101.5    RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report (with the exception of Condition 2 which is to be removed),and resolves to GRANT planning permission subject to the Conditions and Informatives also set out in the report.

              Note: Councillors Bennett, Inkpin-Leissner, Mac Cafferty, Morgan, O’Quinn and Robins were not present at the meeting during consideration and voting in respect of the above application.