Agenda item - BH2020/00724 - 2 Dyke Close, Hove - Full Planning

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE

Ward Affected: Hove Park

1.    It was noted that an in-depth presentation had been provided by officers in advance of the meeting and was included on the council website detailing the scheme by reference to site plans, elevational drawings and photographs which also showed the proposed scheme in the context of neighbouring development. The main considerations in determining the application related to the impacts of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host building and wider streetscene, and the impacts on the amenities of local residents. Also, of consideration are the impacts on the adopted highway and existing biodiversity.

Speaker

2.    Ian Coomber (Planning Agent) addressed the committee on behalf of the objecting neighbours and stated that there was no opposition to extending the property, however, this proposal was too big. Applications have been submitted for the site previously and refused at appeal for overlooking issues and harm caused to No.1 Dyke Close. The sustainability of the scheme is applauded, however, it requested that the application be refused, and a less harmful application submitted. 

Questions for Speaker

3.    Councillor Fishleigh was informed by the speaker that the close neighbour to the north east of the application site has permission to install a large window to the rear elevation of a room currently used as a children’s play room. Should this window be installed the application at No.1 would cause harm to the neighbouring property.

Speaker

4.    Ward Councillor Bagaeen addressed the committee and stated their support for the application. The Councillor noted that the ground map in the report was wrong and they had visited the site last summer. The committee were invited to look at digital mapping online to see if there were any overbearing impact on the cul-de-sac location. The recommendation to refuse was not good for the Planning department and applications should be dealt with even-handedly. Application outcomes are very important. It was noted that the neighbouring window has not been implemented. The committee were invited to permit the application.

Speaker

5.    C Barker addressed the committee as the applicant’s representative and noted that a refusal on the grounds of overbearing impact would be subjective and the application should not be considered to affect No.1 Dyke Close. The scheme refused at appeal did not affect sunlight to the neighbouring property and neither does this application. It was noted that the neighbours have not implemented the rear elevation window that might be affected by the proposal. No.1 has large outside areas and only 3.3% would be affected by the proposal. The pool in the rear garden is more than 20 metres from the proposal and there would not be an overbearing or harm caused by the scheme. No.1 would not be impinged by the development.

Questions for Speaker

6.    Councillor Fishleigh was informed that the proposal would not overlook the pool at No.1 Dyke Close.

Questions for Officers

7.    Councillor Theobald was informed that the proposal included the removal of one chimney stack and no trees.

Debate

8.    Councillor Shanks supported the scheme and felt it should go ahead.

9.    Councillor Miller supported the scheme, which they felt was an improvement and stated they were against the officer recommendation to refuse.

10.   Councillor Theobald stated they had visited the very large site and noted there could be overbearing and overshadowing impact on No.1 Dyke Close. The Councillor felt the proposal may be too big, however, they were not sure.

11.   The Chair invited the committee to vote: on a vote of 7 to 3 planning permission was refused in line with the officer’s recommendation.

12.   Resolved: That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in the officer’s report and resolves to REFUSE planning permission for the reasons set out in the report.