Agenda item - BH2023/02742 - Les Reveurs, 17B Meadow Close, Hove - Full Planning

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

Speakers

2.    Ward Councillor Lyons addressed the committee and stated that the application is for one replacement property demolishing a bungalow and constructing a two-storey property instead. The councillor agreed with the recommendation to refuse for overdevelopment and an incongruous rear terrace that would overlook neighbouring properties. This is a new design different to the planning permission given in 2017. The proposal is overdevelopment in height, creating overshadowing and loss of privacy. The design does not fit in the Close and projects too far forward at the front.

3.    Radek Vic address the committee as the applicant and stated that they had implemented all the requests made by the case officer and the bungalow was situated on a large plot next to large neighbouring properties. It was noted that the floor area of the development was not 414sqm as stated in the report but only 310sqm. The proposals will not be closer to the neighbouring properties. The front of the development will align with other properties.

4.    Alan Phillips addressed the committee as the architect and stated that they had built similar properties in the area, and two had won awards. It was considered that the case officer claims were incorrect. There was no evidence to support the claim of being overbearing or overlooking and loss of privacy. The 90-page design statement was not referenced in the case officer’s report. No meetings had taken place with the case officer. The committee were requested to make a site visit.

5.    The case officer stated that they had negotiated at length with the applicant, that the measurements were correct, and the proposals were a significant increase on the site, resulting in over-extending the property unacceptably, and beyond the previous permission. The scale of the development was mentioned in the report, which recommends a refusal. It was considered that other sites were not similar.

Answers to Committee Member Questions

6.    Councillor Thomson was informed that a contemporary design was acceptable, however the bulk and appearance of this design in the street scene were not. The massing was too much and would cause harm to the amenities of the neighbours and the surrounding area. The bulk, mass and materials proposed result in the recommendation for refusal. The proposals are against policy. The majority of the road is open in appearance, the development proposed if too far forward and prominent in the street scene. The case officer confirmed that site visits had taken place, and the agent had been informed that the proposals were too much. The councillor was informed by the applicant that they had tried to address all requests by the case officer and the proposals were not on the boundary with the neighbour to the rear.

7.    The Planning Manager noted that there was a hedge on the front boundary, but this could be removed or reduced so could not be relied on to provide visual screening.

8.    Councillor Shanks was informed that the amenity loss for neighbours was from a raised terrace to the rear which significantly increased overlooking. Screening had been introduced; however, overlooking was only part of the amenity concern in the reasons for refusal.

9.    Councillor Nann was informed that the report findings regarding loss of light were the case officer’s professional opinion not measured impacts.

Debate

10. Councillor Robinson considered there had been similar large, modern applications before the committee, however, they had more space around the building. The councillor considered the design was squeezing something into a place it did not belong.

11. Councillor Nann considered the neighbours’ amenities were impacted and supported the case officer’s recommendation for refusal.

12. Councillor Shanks had no problem with the development and considered the view of the massing to be subjective and the design good. The councillor stated they would vote against the officer recommendation and would approve the application.

13. Councillor Thomson stated they wanted to support development, just not this much as it impacted on the street scene. The councillor supported the case officer’s recommendation.

14. Councillor Allen considered the site ripe for development, but this design is not in line with spirit of DM18. The councillor supported the case officer's recommendation.

15. Councillor Earthey considered the site to be underused, however, they agreed with the case officer’s recommendation.

16. Councillor Winder considered a large property could overwhelm and this proposal was  not suitable. The councillor agreed with the case officer’s recommendation.

17. Councillor Loughran noted the development was against policy DM18 and others in the City Plan. The site was long and thin, the proposed large dwelling was out of keeping. The councillor supported the case officer’s recommendation.

18. A vote was taken, and the committee voted 8 to 1 against that planning permission be refused. (Councillor Lyons took no part in the debate or decision-making process)

19. RESOLVED: That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report and resolves to REFUSE planning permission for the reasons set out in the report.