Agenda item - BH2020/01319 - 23 Shirley Drive, Hove - Full Planning

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 showed the proposed scheme in the context of neighbouring development. The main considerations in determining the application relate to the principle of development, the design and appearance of the dwellinghouse, landscaping and biodiversity, impact on neighbouring amenities, the standard of accommodation created, the impact on the highways network and sustainability.

Speakers

2.    Tim Pope, the residents’ representative, considered the proposals to have a negative impact on the neighbouring properties. The lack of impact stated in the report cannot be substantiated, the development will impact on the properties nearby. It was noted that no site visits to the neighbouring properties had been carried out and any decision would be challengeable. The development is not compatible with the area where other backland developments have been refused. It is not considered that back gardens are windfall sites. The application is unreasonable and should be refused.

3.    The Planning Manager informed the Members that no site visits had taken place during the COVID-19 lockdown. Officers have used photographs, mapping and aerial mapping to view the site. Enhanced presentations have been attached to all applications during the pandemic and have proved satisfactory.

4.    Ward Councillor Bagaeen considered the proposed sub-division of the plot to be unacceptable and fails to respect Planning policy. A nearby subdivision was refused as the plot was too narrow. The same applies here. Other applications have also been rejected. It is noted that the highway’s officer did not find the proposals to be in line with standards. The height, bulk, detailing and materials are out of keeping on this cramped plot. The committee were reminded that the application at 19 was refused and upheld at appeal.

Questions for speaker

5.    Councillor Fishleigh was informed that Councillor Bagaeen had visited the site.

6.    Councillor Janio was informed that appeal at the nearby property had been refused for similar reasons that Councillor Bagaeen was requesting the application before the committee to be refused.

7.    The Planning Manager requested the Members to consider each application on its own merits.

8.    Gareth Giles spoke to the committee as agent for the applicant and thanked the officers for their time. The proposals are for one new dwelling which is a self-build project of a high standard well designed family home with green credentials secured by condition. The project will not be visible from the road. The host dwelling has been 3 flats since the 1950s with two plots in the garden. The rear plot is the site of the proposed development. The development will have a simple material palette. The side elevation window facing 25B will be partially glazed to maintain privacy. It is considered that the appeal at 19 was different. The applicant considered they worked well with officers on the application.

Questions of officers

9.    Councillor Fishleigh was informed that the application at 19 Shirley Drive was refused and upheld at appeal as the site was too narrow. The application at 23 is not considered to be the similar and is of a better design.

10. Councillor Shanks was informed that back garden developments are taken on a case-by-case basis.

11. Councillor Theobald was informed that site visits were not considered safe at this time due to COVID-19. This was under constant review. There is considered sufficient information for the application to be considered.

12. Councillor Hugh-Jones was informed that it was the opinion of the Planning Manager that the speaker on behalf of the residents considered there to have been insufficient review of the impact by the case officer. The Planning Manager considered the report to be acceptable.

Debate

13. Councillor Theobald considered that not just 25B would be affected by the development, 21 Rigden Road, to the rear, would be affected too. The plot is small, narrow and cramped on the boundary with the Hove Park Neighbourhood Forum. The cars at the front of the property were an issue and the 50 objections were noted.

14. Councillor Shanks stated they were happy with the application as it was a good use of space. The days of big houses were going. The Councillor supported the application.

15. Councillor Osborne supported the application as it was considered to be a good standard and sustainable.

16. A vote was taken and of the 8 Members present and on a vote of 5 to 3 planning permission was granted. (Councillors Child and Henry were not present for the discussions and did not take part in the subsequent vote).

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.