Agenda item - BH2024/02331 - 9 The Upper Drive, Hove - Full Planning

1.    The Case Office introduced the application to the committee.

Speakers

2.    Ward Councillor O’Quinn sent a speech as follows: I am objecting to this planning application on behalf of local residents. It was disappointing to see yet another application to extend one of the 4 blocks of flats that make up 9 Upper Drive as there have been applications to extend both Block A and Block D since 2018. I know 9 Upper Drive well and I saw 2 other blocks of flats built on this section of Upper Drive which have created a very disjointed appearance as there are 2 detached houses between no 9 and the new blocks. The 2 new blocks appear to have encouraged applications for extra stories at no 9. To apply for yet another extension in height to accommodate 2 new flats at Block C does creates a growing sense of dominance on Upper Drive. Opposite are 2 storey detached houses with one low level flat development which is attractive and fits in with the street scene as it’s only 2 stories in height. The first section of the Upper Drive up to Caisters Close is also made up of detached houses with gardens - with a block of flats on the corner of Upper Drive and The Drive - so no 9 does stand out. The report states that the loss light where there are windows facing the application site would be minor as the windows are small and are only for kitchens and bathrooms. There appears to be no proper survey of loss of light taken. I would argue that every window in a kitchen is very important as any loss of light can have a major impact on residents. There also appears to be a loss of sunlight to the relevant gardens and this is not considered to be of sufficient importance to refuse the application. I note that a parking survey was carried out in the early hours of the morning. This is at a time when visitors are likely to have left and only residents’ cars remain. Also, it seems odd to choose Wilbury Villas as people in Block C would be far more likely to park in Wilbury Avenue or The Drive – where the parking is very definitely at maximum capacity these days. I think the parking report stating that there will probably only be one car is optimistic. I would ask that you refuse this application.

3.    Edward Addison addressed the committee as the applicant and stated that the Design & Access Statement looked at the policies and they had not been breached. The critical issues of loss of light and parking were addressed. The Transport Report assessed the quantity of parking spaces and traffic movements and found both satisfactory. It was noted that there would be two new flats, but only one extra floor on top of the building.

4.    The case officer stated that there would be one additional storey, which had a staggered appearance and was set back, there was no more room on site for parking and Highways were happy that on street parking could be accommodated.

Answers to Committee Member Questions

5.    Councillor Earthey was informed that blocks A and D had been built lower as they were near existing residential dwellings but upward extensions were allowed at appeal for block D and following that decision, at planning committee for block A.

6.    Councillor Lyons was informed that if the extension to block C was approved, block B would be the only one at a lower level. The case officer confirmed that the windows on existing flats that would be subject to additional overlooking related to non-habitable rooms, and the roof terrace will be set back with screening.

7.    Councillor Robinson was informed that a light survey was not required.

Debate

8.    Councillor Robinson considered the blocks of flats to be nice looking and the proposals will add to the appearance, not subtract. The councillor supported the application.

9.    Councillor Allen stated they were a fan of increasing housing density and going higher was good to avoid the need to use greenfield land. The councillor supported the application.

10. Councillor Earthey considered it was inevitable that block B would be extended as well. The councillor supported the application.

11. Councillor Thomson noted the development was for one storey only. The councillor supported the application.

12. Councillor Winder considered the proposals to be no threat to the surrounding properties. The councillor supported the application.

13. Councillor Loughran considered the proposals to comply with policy and would not cause harm. The councillor supported the application.

Vote

14. A vote was taken, and the committee unanimously agreed to grant planning permission.

15. 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.