Agenda item - BH2024/00984 - Land to Rear of 28 Medina Villas (fronting Albany Villas), Hove - Householder Planning Consent

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

Speakers

2.         Guy Dixon addressed the committee as the agent on behalf of the applicant and stated that the site was unusual having previously been occupied by a dilapidated garage block. This is a retrospective application. The gates and pillars help to enclose the parking area. Designed to reflect the street scene and is considered an enhancement. The gates allow enclosure of the space and is supported by neighbours.

Answers to Committee Members Questions

3.         Councillor Thomson was informed that the application was to be refused as the proportions were not considered acceptable, nor were the materials, which give an industrial feel in a conservation area.

4.         Councillor Earthey was informed that if they liked the look, then the application could be considered to cause no harm and to assimilate into the area.

5.         Councillor Shanks was informed that the enforcement team invited the applicant to submit a planning application.

6.         Councillor Nann was informed that the pre-application advice had been given regarding materials. The agent noted that anti-social behaviour had driven the applicant to erect the gates, pillars and boundary walls before permission was granted.

7.         Councillor Cattell was informed by the agent that the application served the dwellings to the rear, not the sides and the automatic gates were erected for security reasons.

Debate

8.         Councillor Theobald stated that they were not keen on retrospective applications, however, the site looked good, and the councillor had no problem with the application.

9.         Councillor Sheard considered the development to be in character, not industrial in appearance, and a good design that enhances the heritage area.

10.      Councillor Thomson considered the application not to be terrible. The councillor was against the case officer recommendation to refuse.

11.      Councillor Shanks considered the application to be a matter of judgement and on balance considered the application to be acceptable.

12.      Councillor Earthey considered the application to be proportionate and they disagreed with the officer recommendation to refuse.

13.      Councillor Cattell noted there no other gates on the road, the gates were wide and not in keeping with the area. The councillor agreed with the officer recommendation to refuse.

14.      Councillor Nann stated that they agreed with officer recommendation to refuse.

15.      Councillor Allen stated that they had looked at the street scene and the area and they were against the officer recommendation to refuse.

Vote

16.      A vote was taken, and by 2 to 7, the committee voted against the officer recommendation to refuse the application.

17.      Councillor Allen proposed a motion to grant planning permission. Councillor Sheard seconded the motion.

18.      A recorded vote was taken, and the following Councillors voted to grant planning permission: Earthey, Galvin, Shanks, Theobald, Thomson, Sheard and Allen. Councillors Nann and Cattell voted against the motion to approve.

19.      RESOLVED: That the Committee has taken into consideration and does not agree with the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report and resolves to GRANT planning permission for the following reasons: The development is acceptable in terms of planning policy regarding conservation areas and urban design and in terms of the impact on the street scene.