Agenda item - BH2022/00612 - Flat 6B, 6 St Aubyns Gardens, Hove - Full Planning

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

Speakers

2.    Ward Councillor Wilkinson addressed the committee and stated that they were speaking on behalf of residents. The councillor considered that there was a lack of information and harm would be caused to neighbour’s amenities and the area. It appeared that the report states the building would be used an office, however the structure will add space to the ground floor flat, this was a concern as a previous use had been withdrawn and this application submitted with a different purpose. The development was a substantial separate building with no public benefit. The committee were requested to refuse as dozens of residents are able to see this ugly building, the design is poor and there will be an impact on the occupier regarding size.

3.    John Sneddon addressed the committee as an objecting resident and stated that they represented seven neighbours. The quality of the building is not fitting for the conservation area, against policy that states that structures should enhance or preserve the conservation area, and this building will have an adverse impact on the area. The speaker considered the report was wrong to say that building was not publicly visible as dozens of residents can see it. It was considered this was built by a letting agency and should be refused. This is the third retrospective application submitted for the property and the neighbours are unhappy. There is no access to the building, only through flat 6b.

4.    Alistair Dodd addressed the committee as the agent acting on behalf of the applicant and stated that the outbuilding forms an extension to the existing flat away from other properties, similar to others in the area. The materials used as similar to other buildings in the area. There were 20 letters of support and 11 objectors. There is no overlooking, and the garden is to be replanted. The structure is not out of character and there is no harm to area. The committee were requested to approve the application.

5.    The Planning Manager informed the committee that being retrospective did not change the way the application should be considered by the committee.

Answers to Committee Member Questions

6.    Councillor Hugh-Jones was informed by the Planning Manager that the Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) ratings were not a planning issue, the development was not for rental and would used by the flat, and the aesthetics of the materials was considered not the quality.

7.    Councillor Moonan was informed by the Planning Manager that the planning enforcement team would look at who was using the building if it was thought not to be the occupiers of the flat. The case officer stated that the access was through the flat in the main building, no conversations had been held regarding solar panels, however, they would be encouraged, and the replacement planting will be by condition. The structure will be for sleeping accommodation with one bedroom, storage room and a toilet. The Planning Manager noted there was a condition to prevent independent living in the structure. The councillor was informed that most of the letters of representation were from local residents.

8.    Councillor Shanks was informed by the Planning Manager that the structure did not come under Permitted Development (PD) as the application site was a flat. The case officer stated the building was 22 metres from the flat it served.

9.    Councillor Hugh-Jones was informed that access for fire engines was not a planning matter and would be dealt with by Building Control.

10. Councillor Littman was informed by the case officer that the bio-diversity would be the same or better.

Debate

11. Councillor Yates considered the development was not detrimental to the area or the existing flat. The outside space was acceptable, and the councillor supported the application. The accommodation was not ideal but was an improvement for the flat.

Vote

12. A vote was taken, and by 3 to 1, with 3 abstentions, the committee agreed to grant 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 GRANT planning permission subject to the Conditions and Informatives as set out in the report.