Agenda item - BH2021/03826 - 16 Wilbury Villas, Hove, BN3 6GD - Full Planning

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

Speakers

2.       Ward Councillor O’Quinn sent a statement which was read out by the Democratic Services officer as follows: “I would like to declare that I know the developer of this property but have only seen him in passing for the last two years. He was responsible for the major re-development of one building, 15 Wilbury Villas, and the creation of an adjacent block of luxury flats. Also, I made two errors in my on-line objection – there is only a two-storey extension to the outrigger, and I understand that the top terrace will be used, but that there is no objection to that from residents at no 18. No 16 is the developer’s next   project and might be welcomed were it not for the extension to the outrigger and the creation of terraces and balconies, which are very much a continuation of the style of the two previously mentioned developments but with one major difference – they have a negative impact on neighbouring properties. The main issues which residents have raised with me are noise disturbance, overlooking, over-development, loss of light and loss of private amenity. The outrigger at the back of no 16 is already very dominant and blocks light from no 18 and also from the flats at no 16. To extend it further creates significant issues of loss of light to all the flats at no 18 and it also takes away an important area of light and sky from the garden of no 18. The basement flat of no 16 is going to be extended out considerably and as a result needs additional light brought into it by lightwells. The flat on the ground floor of no 16 will thus be able to look down into the basement flat at no 16 from their terrace – thus impinging on their privacy! The basement flat of No 18 will be especially adversely affected by the extension of the outrigger, which will block light and sun in the flat and in the garden and also by the proposed screenings and the wall between the two properties. Residents at no 16 (mainly owner occupiers) feel that the terraces and balcony proposed in the application will create overlooking, noise, and disturbance. This is inevitable as the terraces look directly into bedrooms and living rooms at no 16, mainly due to their size. Juliette balconies would be more appropriate for the ground and 1st floor flats at no 16. Residents have stated that the rear of number 16 is a haven of peace and quiet at present and that it would be affected negatively by the introduction of large terraces and a balcony. Indeed, I experienced the tranquillity for myself when visiting – you would hardly know you were in a busy city with a busy main road nearby. It should be noted that despite the major refurbishment and extension of this property, no extra flats are being created. This is intended to be a high-end, top of the rental market property but at the expense of its neighbour’s quality of life and by not adhering to the cities Supplemental Planning document”.

3.       James Simpson addressed the committee as a representative of objectors and stated that the development would increase the noise to neighbours and have an inappropriate impact on the shared garden of number 16. The committee were asked to refuse the application on grounds of overlooking – neighbours have the right to enjoy homes respected by extensions, and daylight – proposed screens will remove natural light from number 18 particularly to the basement. The proposals to the rear of the building where a terrace exists will unbalance the rear elevation. Number 18 objects to the application but is willing to discuss.

4.       Ian Coomber addressed the committee as the agent acting on behalf of the applicant and stated that the development improves the flats, and the existing dwelling overlooks all the gardens. Obscured glazing is to be used on the privacy screens improves the area. The impact of the proposals on the rear windows of number 18 has been dealt with in the report. The development improves the standards of accommodation and will add value. It should be noted that light will pass through the obscure glazing. The design is worthy of the building. The committee were requested to agree the application.

Answers to Committee Member Questions

5.       There were no questions.

Debate

6.       There was no debate

Vote

7.       A vote was taken, and the committee agreed unanimously to grant planning permission.

8.       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.