Agenda item - BH2020/02776 - The Pines, Furze Hill, Hove - Full Planning

1.    The Planning Manager introduced the application.

Speakers

2.    Clare Jennings spoke to the committee as an objector and informed the councillors that house sparrows were nesting on the site and noted that house sparrows are protected. The speaker noted that Brighton and Hove City Council (BHCC) recognise the protection in policy. The site is a wildlife corridor and demolition will disturb the birds on site. A survey was requested by the speaker, who also requested that nesting be encouraged with premade nest boxes being placed on the buildings by condition and that no works be carried out during nesting season. A biodiversity survey was also requested.

3.    Charlie James spoke to the committee on behalf of the applicant and informed the councillors that the developers were a family run organisation. It was noted that the design was strong, however, some elements needed changing. The access to the communal space needs improving for example, as do the internal layouts of the properties. The applicant has worked hard with the council and any concerns regarding York Avenue will be agreed and it is considered that the proposals will improve the building. The committee were asked to approve the application.

Questions

4.    Councillor Moonan was informed that the applicant would be happy to add nesting boxes to the development by condition.

5.    Councillor Janio was informed that the 30% of the site would be communal space.

6.    Councillor Barnett was informed that the conservatory to be demolished was difficult to maintain an even temperature in. The proposals will have a fully glazed wall with concertina doors and rooflights, making the new space a high quality area.

7.    Councillor Yates was informed that the current outdoor amenity space was considered low grade and the proposals at the south facing front of the building will be better and will link to the existing communal area. The development is considered to be delivering quality over quantity.

8.    Councillor Deane was informed that the care home staff and residents were informed of the proposals and that trying to upgrade the existing conservatory was not a good idea.

9.    The Planning manager commented that the front of the proposed development will be fully glazed, the existing car park will be removed and it was considered that the residents amenity space would be better south facing.

10.Councillor Theobald was informed that the proposals will improve the resident’s amenity space with fold back doors onto the lounge area.

11.Councillor Janio was informed that the proposed cycle parking would be for staff and the applicant was keen to encourage no cars on site and lockable storage would be provided for staff.

Debate

12.Councillor Yates considered that high quality care facilities were needed and that the changes proposed were on balance an improvement. The cycle parking is considered a good idea to encourage more cycles. The councillor requested that there be no damage to the environment resulting from the proposals.

13.Councillor Theobald considered the existing conservatory to look good and was enjoyed by residents. The proposed three storey block at the front of the building will not be good. The councillor considered the proposals would be wrong for the residents and they would be voting against the application.

14.Councillor Moonan considered that conservatories were old fashioned and that the proposals would be better for the residents.

Vote

15.A vote was taken, and the committee voted by 9 to 1 that planning permission be granted.

16.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 in the report and the additional informative: The applicant is advised to install replacement nesting boxes for birds.