Agenda item - BH2022/00673 - 10 Blatchington Road, Hove - Full Planning

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

          Speakers

2.       Mr Puplett spoke on behalf of the applicants in support of their application. Mr Puplett stated that the proposed development would provide an additional residential unit as well as improving the accommodation provided in the existing first floor flat by introducing an additional bedroom whilst retaining the existing retail use.

3.       The applicant did not concur with the view set out in Officer’s report that the proposed scheme would result in a poorly designed shopfront which would cause significant harm significant harm to the character and appearance of the host building and the wider area. The character of Blatchington Road was mixed and there were other properties nearby which combined retail and residential uses. The proposed scheme would reinstate the basement for residential use, the resulting unit would also provide city centre accommodation with a garden. Sixteen letters had been received in support of this application and no objections had been received.

Answer to Committee Member Questions

4.       Councillor Shanks asked whether the applicants had explored whether other options could achieve the same results, for example by providing a ramped access; also whether the proposals would increase the height of the existing building. Mr Puplett explained that there would be no increase in height, however, the scheme as proposed was the only means by which reinstatement of a residential unit at basement level could be achieved.

5.       Councillor Ebel asked for confirmation regarding access arrangements to the residential units and it was explained that that this was via a communal front door with separate internal doors to each flat.

6.       Councillor Theobald enquired regarding the assertion that there were similar properties in the vicinity which had undergone similar treatment, citing the recent planning permission granted in respect of the adjacent property at no 8. It was explained that the considerations there had been different in that related to an entirely residential property with no retail provision and stepped access had been considered appropriate in that instance.

7.       Councillor Yates referred to the fact that this proposal would result in a building where the retail use would be less accessible than was currently the case. He asked whether permission had been given for commercial buildings in the neighbouring area. It was confirmed that it had not.

          Debate

8.       Councillor Theobald stated that she considered that the proposed scheme was attractive and would provide a unit at basement level with garden. That could not be achieved without stepped access. The resulting units would not be fully accessible, however, in this instance she considered that was acceptable.

9.       Councillor Janio considered that it was not usual to have stepped access to a retail unit. This would result in that unit being less accessible than currently which in his view would be a backward step.

10.      Councillor Yates considered that although the proposed development would be attractive, on balance it was not acceptable because it would result in a poorly designed shopfront which would not be accessible for anyone unable to use the stepped access.

11.      Councillor Robins stated that neither the dwelling units nor the business use would be accessible, if permission for this use was agreed, it could create a precedent for similar applications; for that reason he would be voting that it be refused.

12.      Councillor Littman, the Chair stated he was in agreement that the scheme would cause significant harm to the character of the wider area and would represent a disadvantage to people for whom stepped access would be a barrier to a local service.

          Vote

13.      A vote taken and Members voted by 9 to 1 that the application be refused.

14.      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 also set out in the report.