Agenda item - BH2019/01089 -Medina House, 9 King's Esplanade, Hove - Removal or Variation of a Condition

Application for variation of condition 1 of BH2016/05893 (Demolition of existing building and erection of a single residential dwelling (C3) with associated hard and soft landscaping) to permit alterations to approved drawings to allow changes to elevation finishes, windows and internal layout.

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Ward Affected: Central Hove

Application for variation of condition 1 of BH2016/05893 (Demolition of existing building and erection of a single residential dwelling (C3) with associated hard and soft landscaping) to permit alterations to approved drawings to allow changes to elevation finishes, windows and internal layout.

              Officer Presentation

(1)          The Principal Planning Officer, Matt Gest, introduced the report and gave a detailed presentation by reference to plans, including roof plans, elevational drawings and photographs and including digital plans showing the differences between the previous and current applications and the application site in the context of the neighbouring Victorian cottages. The following amendments set out in the Late/Additional Representations List were highlighted:

References to attached conditions in the officer report were not correct:

-Paragraph 8.12 should refer to Condition 7.

-Paragraph 8.14 should refer to Condition 18.

-Paragraph 8.16 should refer to Condition 13 (energy efficiency),

-Condition 14 (water efficiency) and Condition 17 (nature conservation).

(2)       It was noted that the principle of developing this site for a new residential dwelling had already been established. The main considerations in the determining of this application related to the proposed alterations to the scheme approved under application BH2016/05893. The internal layout of the building had been modified and dividing walls had been shifted and those changes had not had a detrimental effect on the standard of accommodation provided and approval was recommended.

              Questions of Officers

(3)          Councillor Yates referred to the provision of air conditioning plant in place of the photovoltaic treatment proposed by the earlier scheme, querying whether as in his view this would undoubtedly result in increased energy consumption the current proposal remained policy compliant. It was confirmed that it would, and that those elements of the scheme were considered acceptable as they remained well above the minimum standards required.

(4)          Councillor Shanks sought confirmation that notwithstanding references which had been made to the previous scheme the application before the Committee needed to be determined on its planning merits and it was confirmed that it did.

(5)          Councillor Theobald sought confirmation regarding the location of plant and machinery, including the air conditioning units at roof level and whether this would be visible from street level. It was confirmed that it would not, also the Environmental Health team considered the proposals acceptable.

              Debate and Decision Making Process

(7)          Whilst Councillor Yates considered the scheme acceptable overall, it was inferior to that previously put forward which was regrettable.

(6)          Councillor Simson stated that she considered the scheme was acceptable. Councillor Theobald concurred stating that she would have preferred greater use of brick.

(7)          Councillor Hugh-Jones also stated  that she supported the officer  recommendation.

(8)          A vote was taken and the 8 Members present voted by 7 to 1 that planning permission be granted.

25.3       RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report and resolves to GRANT planning permission subject to the Conditions and Informatives also set out in the report.

Note: Councillors Fishleigh and Miller had given their apologies and were not present at the meeting.