Agenda item - BH2021/00537 - 28-29 George Street, Hove - Full Planning

1.         The Planning Manager introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to enhanced visuals.

            Speakers

2.         Councillor Wilkinson spoke in his capacity as a Local Ward Councillor setting out his objections to the proposed scheme and those neighbouring residents. He referred to the fact that there were a number of residential dwellings above the commercial and retail premises in George Street. There were concerns that a roof terrace if used as a sitting out area would generate noise and other nuisance. It would also have an overly dominant appearance in the neighbouring street scene.

3.         Mr James spoke on behalf of the applicants in support of their application. He explained that this application built on the two which had preceded it. The roof terrace was already in existence and had been in use for many years. The principle of creating two flats was already established. The proposed rooflights would not be visible from George Street. The external changes proposed would be very minor.

            Questions of Officers

4.         Councillor Fishleigh sought clarification regarding whether neighbouring units had roof terraces/flat roof areas which were in use for gatherings and had given rise to noise and other nuisance. It was explained that a number of the businesses in George Street had rear access and had flat roofs but were not in use as amenity space. The creation of a roof terrace had an extant permission and that could not be removed.

            Debate

5.         Councillor Theobald explained that she undertaken a site visit herself and had walked around to the back of the site. The flint wall in situ was attractive but in her view the proposed cedar fence would be dominant and unattractive. The Terrace itself could generate additional noise in close proximity to the neighbouring buildings and first floor level and would have a detrimental impact on Ventnor Villas and the character of the conservation are and should be refused.

6.         Councillor Childs was in agreement that there would be a negative impact.

7.         Councillor Osborne considered that on balance he considered that the scheme was acceptable. The impact of the proposed rooflights would be minimal, the existing flint wall was to be retained and the cedar fence would prevent overlooking to neighbouring buildings.

8.         The Chair, Councillor Littman, stated that it was not appropriate to revisit the planning permission already in place whilst he considered that the scheme could be improved he did not consider that there were sufficient grounds for refusal.

9.         A vote was taken and the 9 members present voted by 5 to 4 that planning permission be granted.

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