Agenda item - BH2021/04346 - 22 Hanover Terrace, Brighton - Householder Planning Consent

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

Speakers

2.       Ward Councillor Powell addressed the committee and stated they supported residents in opposing the application as it would set a precedent. The digging out of the basement would be very disturbing and it was noted that the applicant was not living at the site. The dwelling would exceed 5 bedrooms, with 6 over 4 storeys, which is too much. The development would produce noise, waste and put pressure on amenities. There would be too many bins outside the property. The structural integrity of the neighbouring properties was a concern. The councillor requested that if granted the rent be 20% below market rents. The committee were requested to refuse the application.

3.       Phil Yeoman addressed the committee as an objecting neighbour and stated that the landlord had already removed two trees in anticipation of the works being granted permission. It was noted that there are many extensions in the area, and some basements but as far as he was aware there are no 4 storey houses or 2 storeys over a basement. Applications on the site had been previously refused. The development was considered excessive for a small plot in this close community. Tunnelling will need to take place as number 22 is lower than 23. There is no change from the previous refusal for loss of amenity space.

4.       Sean Garrick submitted a statement that was read to the committee as the agent for the applicant: Dear members of the committee. Apologies I could not be with you today and I would like to thank Shaun Hughes for offering to read this at the committee meeting in my absence. Following the previous reasons for refusal (previous planning application BH2019/03120) and the subsequent comments made by H. Miles BA (hons), MA MRTPI planning Inspector as part of the appeal (ref APP/Q1445/W/20/3253220). My client has taken on board the comments raised and has submitted this new application in response. The amended scheme is not a tactic or diversion to achieve a consent by the back door but is a direct and positive response to the previous reasons (3 no) for refusal. Taking these in order we respond as follows: Reason 1: The proposed excavation to create an entire new floor, the lightwell and the infill extension would cumulatively be an excessive form and scale of development and the front canted bay at basement level would be an untraditional addition, causing less than substantial harm to the appearance of the conservation area, without sufficient public benefits being proposed. To directly quote H. Miles (planning Inspector): The main outlook from the windows to the back of 23 Hanover Terrace is to the rear and this would not change as a result of the proposed development. The proposed rear extension would be apparent in peripheral views, similar to the situation with the existing boundary wall, albeit higher. As such there would not be a harmful effect on the outlook from no. 23. There is an existing rear extension at no. 24 and therefore the consequence of the proposed development would be extensions along both boundaries. However, taking into account the proposed height on the boundary, depth and the circumstances described above I am not persuaded that a harmful tunnelling effect would occur.Consequently, the proposed development would not have an unacceptably harmful effect on the living conditions of the adjacent occupiers, with particular regard to 23 Hanover Terrace. As such, in this respect, the proposed development would not be contrary to Policy QD27 of the Local Plan which requires that development will notcause material loss of amenity to adjacent occupiers. Additionally, we have taken on board the comments regarding the canted bay which has now been omitted from the scheme.Reason 2: The proposed infill extension, by reason of its height and siting on the boundary, would unacceptably restrict the outlook and create a sense of enclosure / a tunnel effect for the occupiers of no. 23.We refer you to the quotes from H. Miles (planning Inspector) as above for Reason 1.Reason 3: The standard of accommodation for the proposed dwelling, by reason of insufficient Gross Internal Area, outlook, natural light and private external amenity space, would be poor, and the ground floor extension and rear lightwell would also unacceptably reduce the amount of external amenity space for the existing HMO.These comments have been taken on board. There is no longer an independent dwelling as part of the new scheme and the amended layout will enhance the living accommodation of the existing HMO by introducing a TV / study room, additional bathroom and laundry area. The inclusion of an additional bedroom will help to offset the costs of these items.As always, we would like to thank the hard work and diligence of the planning officers and in particular Steven Dover. Whilst we do not always see eye to eye, I feel on balance his recommendation is the correct decision and I ask you to support your officer.

Answers to Committee Member Questions

5.       Councillor Ebel was informed that there was no window to the basement bathroom and the patio was faced by a window and light well in the basement. The basement window is partially submerged and gives indirect light.

6.       Councillor Theobald was informed that the difference between the previous and the current application was the previous was for a separate basement flat and the front of property would have been extended. Neither are in this application. The inspector considered the basement too small to be a separate flat.

7.       Councillor Meadows was informed that the council would not be responsible for the neighbouring properties through any possible party wall issues if permission was granted but the developer would also need Building Control sign off.

8.       Councillor Yates was informed that the light in the basement and escape route were less considered as this was an extension.

Debate

9.       Councillor Ebel considered the basement would be very dark and people should not have to live there. The councillor was against the application.

10.      Councillor Yates considered the proposals not to be a good standard of accommodation and the application was an overdevelopment of the site.

11.      Councillor Littman agreed with Councillor Yates and considered the proposals an overdevelopment of the site.

Vote

12.      A vote was taken, and by 6 to 1 abstention the committee voted against the officer recommendation to grant planning permission.

13.      Councillor Yates proposed the application be refused on the grounds of overdevelopment and quality of amenities. Councillor Ebel seconded the proposal.

14.      A vote was taken, and councillors Ebel, Fishleigh, Shanks, Theobald, Yates and Littman supported the proposed refusal. Councillor Meadows abstained.

15.      RESOLVED: That Planning permission be refused for reasons of overdevelopment, Standard of accommodation for future residents and lack of light.