Agenda item - BH2021/01163 - Garages opposite 6-10 St Johns Road, Hove - Full Planning

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

Speakers

2.       Mr Wickson addressed the committee as an objecting neighbour and stated that they had rescued several flats in Adelaide Crescent and now occupied one of them to the rear of the application site where marginal light is received. Neighbours were not notified of the proposals and no site visits have taken place. The daylight and sunlight into the neighbouring property will be affected as the officer failed to notice windows facing the scheme. The architect’s drawings do not show that the neighbouring flats are at a lower level to the proposals. The flats at lower levels will be held to ransom with the fire exits closed off by the development. The garages on the site are used. The flat roof design of the proposals will cast shadows and the development will reduce parking. The neighbours have not been contacted at any time during the three month application process time.

3.       Julia Mitchell addressed the committee as the agent for the applicant and stated that there are no vehicle repair businesses on site, and the garages are only used for storage. The proposed scheme will bring benefits to the conservation area as residential use is less harmful than commercial use. The design is to match the existing dwellings and the scheme will be car free with close- by amenities. It was noted that the Highways Team support the scheme. To protect the neighbours’ amenities the development is stepped back on the first floor away from Adelaide Crescent. The daylight report noted that the neighbours’ windows facing the development were in rooms with more windows. The four new dwellings were considered to help with housing targets and to be sustainable. The committee were asked to grant planning permission.

4.       The case officer informed the committee that the site was currently used as vehicle storage. Site notices were put up and the immediate neighbours to the application site were notified of the application. Reasonable steps were taken to inform neighbours of the proposals.

Questions

5.       Councillor Shanks was informed that the proposals were 3.5 metres higher than the existing buildings.

6.       The Conservation Advisory Group (CAG) representative was informed that the proposals would be the same distance from the rear neighbouring properties as the existing buildings and the design has been agreed by the Heritage Team.

7.       Councillor McNair was informed that the development would be car free, and this was supported by the Highways Team.

Debate

8.       Councillor Yates stated they understood the comments by the CAG representative however the councillor had no objections to the design. It was considered that a car free scheme was good and in keeping with the area. The loss of the garages is not considered to be significant and four new dwellings will be good for the city. The design was on balance acceptable. The councillor supported the application.

9.       Councillor Ebel considered the existing garages did not look nice and the development would be an improvement. The councillor supported the application.

10.      Councillor Littman noted the changes to residential from commercial in the area and considered the design to be clever and to reduce the impact of the development. The councillor supported the application.

Vote

11.      A vote was taken, and the by a vote of 4 to 2 planning permission was granted. (Councillor Moonan did not take part in the discussions or decision-making process).

12.      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 as set out in the report.