Agenda item - BH2019/01180 - Vallance Hall, 49 Hove Street, Hove - Full Planning

1.       The Planning Manager introduced the application to the committee.

Speakers

2.       Ian Coomber addressed the committee as an objector and stated that Futurelab are a tech firm located next to the application site. The proposed office space appears to not be needed. Futurelab are not able to work remotely and will be disturbed by construction works as there is only a brick wall on the boundary. The loss of the tree outside the building is regrettable. The committee were requested to refuse the application.

3.       Teresa Sutherland addressed the committee as an objecting neighbour and stated that they felt the neighbours were not consulted and the development would have a severe impact on their property with loss of daylight and being overbearing. The objector stated they worked from home and that seven windows of their property face the development site and these are the only source of daylight. The neighbour requested an assessment of daylight/sunlight impacts on their property but was informed that any concerns would be considered at officer level, however, it appears the 450 rule was not used and what was the energy efficiency of the project? The neighbour had extreme concerns regarding the impact on the development on their own property.

4.       Peter Young addressed the committee as architect for the scheme and stated that the application was coming before the committee three years after the pre-application advice was received. The project has had four case officers and four design changes. The development will be lower than the road and set back from the pavement. The application was considered to be a positive regeneration of the area and much needed office space. A daylight and sunlight assessment stated there would be no reduction for the neighbouring property as the windows affected are not principal windows. The proposed windows facing the neighbour will be obscured glazed and louvered. The scale of the project has been reduced. The development includes cycle parking and a green roof. The officer recommendation to approve is welcomed. The committee were requested to support the application.

5.       The case officer clarified that the 450 rule was used to assess the scheme and some overshadowing would result from the development, however the harm was considered to be small and on balance acceptable. All the proposed windows are to be obscure glazed and louvered. It was considered there would be some loss of light, however, none of the windows affected were the only window in the room.

Questions

6.       Councillor Shanks was informed that the underground car park would accommodate 28 cars and that Building Regulations would look at how the car park was to be constructed.

7.       Councillor Ebel was informed that the development was one storey higher than the neighbouring offices and that daylight was considered sufficient. The number of workers to be accommodated was not known at this stage.

Vote

8.       A vote was taken, and the committee voted unanimously that planning permission be granted.

9.       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 on the Heads of Terms set out in the report and the Conditions and Informatives as set out in the report, SAVE THAT should the s106 Planning Obligation not be completed on or before 7 October 2021 the Head of Planning is hereby authorised to refuse planning permission for the reasons set out in section 12 of the report.