Agenda item - BH2021/01985 - 98 Portland Road, Hove - Full Planning

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

Speakers

2.     Ward Councillor Henry addressed the committee and stated that the application related to a local Hove business. The basement is 47sqm which is less than minimum standards and the council should not promote substandard housing. The basement was damp and has remained unrented since June 2020. The height of the ceiling is also considered too low for accommodation standards. The company making the application is a good news story for Hove in the Westbourne ward where locals are employed. The councillor wants to help local businesses and the development proposed could help the business grow.

3.     The applicant, Michael Routledge, addressed the committee and stated that they considered the basement flat to be poor quality and empty since June 2020. The business had moved into the thriving area with 4 staff at the start which has grown to 7 and the business is looking to expand in the location where there are no other financial support companies. The basement will become a rest room for staff as the company expands to more than 7. The company want to stay in the area, and it would be a loss if the company had to move due to lack of space.

4.    The Planning Manager confirmed that the basement area meets national space standards, however, the height does not meet standards.

Questions

5.     Councillor Yates was informed that the basement would be renovated to a higher standard before staff or clients were to use the space.

6.     Councillor Hugh-Jones was informed that the basement was owned by the applicant’s mother-in-law and there had been no discussion regarding the damp. The previous renters moved out due to the damp and other issues.

7.     Councillor Childs was informed by the applicant that the offices were at capacity now and without expansion the company would stand still or relocate. The applicant stated they wanted to stay at the site and have the ability to increase staff with 3 more and wanted a comfortable rest area.

8.     Councillor Barnett was informed by the applicant that the basement could be a flat again, however this would require investment.

9.     Councillor Shanks was informed by the case officer that if the basement were to be split into two units it would require planning permission, however, if two units were reunited into one unit, this would not require planning permission.

Debate

10.Councillor Yates stated they agreed with the officer recommendation to refuse as the accommodation was in a poor state. The councillor noted that the council has a team to support landlords to bring accommodation back to good standards. The councillor noted that office space is needed but not the city also needs housing. The councillor support the recommendation to refuse.

11.Councillor Hugh-Jones agreed the basement had been allowed to fall into disrepair and this was not good. The councillor supported the recommendation to refuse.

Vote

12.A vote was taken, and the committee voted by 3 to 2 and one abstention to refuse planning permission.

13.RESOLVED: That the committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report and resolves to REFUSE planning permission for the reasons set out in the report.