Agenda item - BH2018/03600 -Buckley Close, Hove -Full Planning

Demolition of existing garages (B1) and erection of 3no two storey residential blocks providing 12no flats in total (C3) with gardens.  Creation of 11no car parking spaces and cycle storage, with landscaping and other associated works.

RECOMMENDATION - Minded to Grant

ward Affected:Hangleton & Knoll

              Demolition of existing garages (B1) and erection of 3no two storey residential blocks providing 12no flats in total (C3) with gardens.  Creation of 11no car parking spaces and cycle storage, with landscaping and other associated works.

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

              Officer Presentation

(2)          The Planning Officer, Eimear Murphy, introduced the application and gave a detailed presentation by reference to site plans, floor plans, elevational drawings and photographs detailing the proposed scheme.

(3)          The application site was aproximately 12 metres in depth and 137.5 metres in length, covering an area of 1279.3 sqm which includes the 48. garages, land to the north and south and part of the public highway. The site is located to the east side of Buckley Close, a cul-de-sac with 9 x 3 storey flatted buildings with pitched roofs set an angle to the road. Behind the existing garages, sitting on higher ground, is a mix of two storey flats and dwelling houses of Chichester Close. There was a gap between the row of garages and rear garden boundaries. The rear gardens were defined by a mixture of post-and-wire and/or close-boarded fence panels. Some trees were growing out of the rear boundary retaining wall, over this space. The supporting planning statement states that all the garages have been empty for many years and unlettable due to their current condition. All of the garages were now boarded up. This application sought to demolish the existing garages and to erect 3 detached two-storey buildings in order to provide 12 affordable units of accommodation for rent.

(4)          It was noted that the proposed buildings would be erected up to the edge of the concrete apron currently in existence, beyond which a new footpath of 1.1m in width would be provided for its entire length. The proposed buildings would be of a consistent plan with a recessed entrance bay leading to a communal hall and stairs, they varied however in length and in the pattern of fenestration reflecting the units, types and room designations. The main considerations in determining the application related to the principle of the development, its scale, character and appearance and relationship with the area/context; residential amenities for existing and future occupants, design, transport and parking, sustainable development, ecology/biodiversity archaeology and the setting of the national park. The scheme overall was considered to be in general accordance with relevant local and national planning policies and guidance and was considered to be acceptable; planning permission was therefore recommended subject to a s106 agreement and the conditions and informatives proposed.

              Questions of Officers

(5)          Councillor C Theobald wanted clarification regarding where objections had come from, i.e., had they come from immediately neighbouring residents who would be directly affected by the proposed development. Councillor Theobald also asked for details of the distances between the proposed blocks and the gardens of the neighbouring properties.

(6)          Councillor Mac Cafferty asked whether consideration had been given to the Food Growing Planning Advisory Note asking if thought had been given to providing communal allotments, composting and green roofs. It was confirmed that had not been discussed during the application n process. Councillor Mac Cafferty asked therefore if an informative could be added to any planning permission granted.

(7)          Councillor Miller referred to the lack of parking, the scheme itself would remove parking and asked whether as parking survey had taken place and whether it was considered that there could be a negative impact on traffic and parking. The Development and Transport Assessment Manager, David Farnham explained that any additional parking demand was not considered to be such that additional parking would be necessitated.

(8)          Councillor Hyde sought information regarding gaps between the proposed new blocks and the existing buildings behind and the details of the distances/angles between the proposed form of development and that existing. She was concerned that the new buildings could appear oppressive. It was confirmed having had regard both to the height, distance and degree of separation between the buildings it was not considered that the proposed form of development would be overbearing when viewed in the context of the existing buildings.

(9)          Councillor Moonan enquired whether there would be a sufficient safe space to enable children to cross from the site to access the bus stop nearby. The Development and Transport Assessment Manager, David Farnham explained that the proposals were considered satisfactory and that any additional improvements could be made if considered necessary.

              Debate and Decision Making Process

(10)       Councillor C Theobald stated that whilst the additional housing was welcomed, she had some concerns that the form of development proposed was cramped and could impact on existing residents.

(11)       Councillor Hyde expressed concern regarding the impact that the last block in the row could have in view of its distance between it and the residential dwellings behind. Whilst welcoming additional housing provision she would have preferred blocks which were lower in height or bungalows.

(12)       Councillor Cobb stated that she had grave concerns regarding pedestrian safety for those attending the nearby school which would result from two-way traffic being permitted. The Development and Transport Assessment Manager, David Farnham confirmed, however that double yellow line markings would prevent opportunistic parking, industry standards had been applied and the arrangements out into place were considered to be satisfactory.

(13)       Councillor Gilbey confirmed that she had no hesitation in supporting this scheme. Similar proposals had been effected in her ward and had provided much needed housing without compromising that already there.

(14)       Councillor Miller stated that he welcomed the proposed scheme which in his view had been sympathetically designed, considering that gaps between buildings were acceptable and that the site could have taken a fourth block.

(15)       Councillor Moonan welcomed the scheme which would provide much needed housing and had been thoughtfully designed.

(16)       Councillor Cattell, the Chair, stated that she was delighted to support this scheme hoping that more affordable units could be provided on similar sites elsewhere in city. The design was simple but effective.

(17)       A vote was taken and on a vote of 7 to2 with 1 abstention, the 10 Members who were present voted that they were Minded to Grant Planning Permission.

134.3    RESOLVED - That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report and resolves to be MINDED TO GRANT planning permission subject to a s106 agreement and the following Conditions and Informatives set out in the report, a condition requiring details of the safety rail to be submitted for approval and an informative regarding consideration to be given to the Council’s Food Growing Planning Advice Note SAVE THAT should the s106 Planning Obligation not be completed on or before the 24^th July 2019 the Head of Planning is hereby authorised to refuse planning permission for the reasons set out in section 11 of the report.

              Note: Councillor Bennett was not present at the meeting during consideration and determination of the above application.