Agenda item - BH2020/00931 - Former Dairy, 35 - 39 The Droveway, Hove - Full Planning

1.       The case officer introduced the application to the committee.

Speakers

2.       Kevin Brown addressed the committee as an objector, in the presence of another objector, Ms Wright, and stated that the application was not the same as before and that the conservation aspects of the site were important. Concerns related to the high number of proposed dwellings and the density of the development. The proposed rooflights are a concern with regard to loss of privacy and noise. The lower sill heights are also a concern. leading to overlooking. Light pollution as well as the loss of sea views are a concern, as is overshadowing and overlooking. The planned vehicle access from Mallory Road raises concerns regarding parking and traffic, and the access of construction traffic. The committee were requested to condition that no weekend working will take place and there will be no construction traffic access from Mallory Road.

3.       Joseph Pearson addressed the committee as the agent for the application and stated that the key matters were the general design and footprint. The properties on the northside of the site will be 1.7m lower than the approved development, with ridge heights as before. Only one unit will face Mallory Road. Rooflights proposed will be angled so there will be no overlooking for the neighbours. It is noted that the council Heritage Team support the application. The site has been vacant since 2016 and it has been a challenge to deliver commercial space in the scheme for this mixed use site. The number of homes has been increased following negotiation with officers.

4.       The case officer informed the committee that the ground floor plan was similar to the extant permission and the ridge heights on the north elevation facing the objector at no.6 was lower than the extant permission.

Questions

5.       Councillor Moonan was informed that the materials would include clay tiles, and flint walls with brick dressing. It was noted that the developer would be required by condition to copy the existing and samples will need to be supplied to the council for agreement. The new buildings in the development will have painted masonry, brick work with grey metal roofing and aluminium windows. It was also noted that there was no condition regarding access from Mallory Road.

6.       The Senior Solicitor stated that condition 8 related to a construction management plan and that the council would agree the routes into the site under this plan. If the Members wished to add a condition it would need to be fair and reasonable.

7.       The case officer noted that the proposals include 2 parking spaces accessed from Mallory Road, and these were unallocated, the same as with the extant permission. Condition 20 requires details of parking areas, allocation and management.

8.       The Conservation Advisory Group (CAG) representative was informed that the existing barn roof tiles are to be repaired and retained. The existing long strips of rooflights are to be retained in the commercial buildings to look less residential. The existing buildings are locally listed, not nationally, and are currently vacant. The benefit of the development is considered to outweigh the harm. It was noted that the pantiles are to be replaced with clay tiles and that materials are by condition to be approved. The CAG representative requested that the pantiles be saved and used in the new development.

9.       The case officer noted that the pantiles did appear to be mentioned in the extant permission and the heritage comments did not mention the pantiles either.

10.      The Planning Manager noted there was no objection from the Heritage Team to the removal of the pantiles and it would be unreasonable to condition their retention.

11.      Councillor Barnett was informed that there would be 26 parking spaces, less than the extant permission, on balance appropriate for the scheme. Less parking has allowed for extra amenity space with the increase in the size of gardens. The key issue is to retain the historic buildings on site, and the shared courtyard as a historic space.

12.      Councillor Shanks was informed that the artistic component of the s106 agreement would be used on site and that local residents are able to contribute to the discussions via their ward member.

Debate

13.      Councillor Yates considered that the use of non-heritage roof tiles was not good and felt it was expected that the pantiles be retained. The councillor requested a condition to retain the pantiles.

14.      The Senior Solicitor noted that conditions need to be reasonable and that the Planning Manager had advised against the addition of such a condition.

15.      Councillor Yates proposed a motion to add a condition to retain the pantiles. The motion was seconded by Councillor Moonan.

16.      Councillor Shanks stated their support for the application.

17.      Councillor McNair stated the surrounding area consisted of large individual properties and the proposed scheme was not similar in design. The proposals were not considered to match the surrounding area and was an overdevelopment of the site.

Vote

18.      A vote was taken on the motion to retain the existing pantiles by condition and agreed by 4 to 2, with 1 abstention.

19.      A vote was taken, and the committee voted by 5 to 2, that planning permission be granted.

20.      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 13 of the report.