Agenda item - BH2025/00500 - 23C Shirley Drive, Hove - Full Planning

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

Speakers

2.    Esme Hall addressed the committee as a resident and stated that local residents object to the application. The planning inspector, who is higher than a planning officer, refused the previous application and the property should be demolished. This application is for retrospective permission. The basement is not good. The original proposal was for a three-bedroom house, which was objected to. There 14 new conditions, however, it cannot be relied upon that they will be adhered to. The new owner knew of the enforcement action. If this is permitted a precedent will be set where developers build first with permission and ignore conditions. Please refuse.

3.    Ward Councillor Lyons addressed the committee and stated that the previous application had drawn attention in the national press. Not enough of this application is different from that refused by the planning inspector. Local residents object to the scheme and there is no emergency vehicle access to the property. The design is not in keeping with the area. The conditions have been ignored. A new crossover, to be constructed prior to occupation, will be harmful to the tree between the highway and the property boundary. The property is a badly designed white box that should have wood cladding. Please refuse.

4.    Dave Wood addressed the committee as the agent acting on behalf of the receivers. The background is noted and they have tried to liaise with the local planning authority (LPA). The property is in receivership. The agent is open to discussions and noted that above ground the property is largely within policy and the basement bedrooms have been reduced.

Answers to Committee Members Questions

5.    Councillor Sheard was informed that the application did not cover granting permission for the access. Fire & Rescue have requested sprinklers and Building Control (BC) are looking into this. The agent confirmed that the sprinklers have been installed. It was noted that drainage at the site was a BC matter that would be looked into as part of that process.

6.    Councillor Pickett was informed that the balcony, belonging to the host house over the access (preventing emergency vehicle access), was a BC issue, as was the installation of sprinklers. It was noted that the new window in the remaining basement bedroom was not large, but acceptable in terms of BRE light levels.

7.    Councillor Thomson was informed that there was no basement in the original planning permission, and therefore the permission had fallen away. The bedrooms in the basement had little light, and now it is proposed that two are used as storage with no windows, and one is a bedroom with an enlarged window. The agent confirmed that they were looking for a suitable solution to avoid demolition.

8.    Councillor Cattell was informed that the inspector’s decision was based on a technical point in the appeal submission given the limitations of the chosen ground of appeal, and an enforcement notice has been served. A breach of conditions could result in an enforcement action.

9.    Councillor Theobald was informed that the sprinklers have been installed and the access was unauthorised. The agent confirmed the property was vacant at the moment and had been sold subject to contract. It was noted the acceptability of the access would be covered by the Highways team.

10. Councillor Nann was informed that the demolition notice was not for the committee to look at. The legal officer noted that the committee should look at the application before them.

11. Councillor Parrott was informed that the Fire & Rescue access would be considered under BC.

Debate

12. Councillor Cattell considered it was a real shame about the design. However, demolition was not sustainable. In the principle the property was acceptable, and there is an extant permission. Setting a precedent to build without planning permission was not likely and retrospective applications were unusual.

13. Councillor Nann considered there were good reasons to not allow, however, these were not planning reasons. The councillor therefore supported the application.

14. Councillor Sheard expressed the belief that the committee were not the moral police, and BC will have a lot to look at. The councillor had concerns.

15. Councillor Theobald considered there were so many items wrong with the application, that made a mockery of the planning system. The councillor considered a precedent would be set and they felt sorry for the neighbours. The councillor was against the application.

16. Councillor Winder expressed concerns at setting a precedent and considered the property not to be safe or habitable. Was the property a house or just rooms.

17. Councillor Pickett expressed no concerns with the location; however, they considered the design poor and not habitable. The councillor was against the application.

18. Councillor Parrott considered the application to be morally not be good. The councillor had faith in the Fire & Rescue and BC.

19. Councillor Earthey stated they were deeply concerned; however, they trusted the BC team. The councillor supported the application.

20. Councillor Thomson expressed concerns at the building without permission; however, they supported the application and considered that demolition would not be sustainable.

Vote

21. A vote was held, and by 7 to 2 the committee agreed to grant planning permission.

22. 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.