Agenda item - BH2025/01792 - First Floor and Second Floor Flats, 7 St Johns Place, Hove - Full Planning

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

Speakers

2.   Bruce Warren addressed the committee a resident and stated they represented the neighbours. The loss of amenity was an issue, with concerns regarding the sound and how this will travel around neighbours. The proposed outside space is large and will be used for large gatherings. Even low speech levels will be too high for neighbours. The balcony will overlook first avenue properties. The proposals could set a precedent, and the building is listed in a conservation area has been neglected. The resident was against the application.

3.   Megan Smith addressed the committee as the agent acting on behalf of the applicant and stated that the building has suffered over time and detracts from the area. The original windows are to be restored. The proposed terrace has been set back to reduce overlooking. The use of the balcony will be seasonal with no overlooking increase on the existing situation. All the alterations being undertaken will be for the new owner, who wishes to restore the building. The development aligns with policy in this well considered scheme. The committee were requested to approve the application.

Answers to Committee Member Questions

4.   Councillor Cattell was informed that it was considered that there was no loss of parking as the garage is currently not used for parking.

5.   Councillor Nann was informed by the resident that currently conversations can be heard, like a whispering gallery and conversations will bounce off the wall some 7m away.

6.   Councillor Theobald was informed that hours of use would not be appropriate for a dwelling house. The planning manager noted that such a condition on a residential property would be unenforceable. The party walls will have sound proofing by condition, and any unreasonable use of the balcony can be enforced through the Environmental Protection Act.

7.   Councillor Pickett was informed that there were no other balconies in the mews block.

8.   Councillor Sheard was informed that it appears that other roofs are used for amenity space in the nearby area. The planning manager noted there had been some enforcement actions in the area but could not confirm if the raised terrace at 54 First Avenue was in lawful use or not.

9.   Councillor Robinson was informed that the balconies are usually encouraged in new builds, however, they can be refused if considered to directly overlook neighbouring properties.

10. The Planning Manager provided the verbal update that the conditions to secure the retention of interior historic features had been removed from the recommended conditions.

Debate

11. Councillor Robinson understood resident’s concerns and as balconies can be noisy. The councillor requested that the residents work together to reduce the harm.

12. Councillor Cattell supported the application.

13. Councillor Theobald considered the application to be a heritage gain.

14. Councillor Pickett noted that officers had worked hard with the applicant. The councillor supported the application.

15. Councillor Sheard considered the development to be good and noted that other flat roofs were being used by residents as outdoor space. The councillor supported the application.

Vote

16. A vote was held, and the committee agreed unanimously to grant planning permission.

17. 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.