Agenda item - BH2022/01629 - 64, 66, 68 & 68A Old Shoreham Road, Hove - Full Planning

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

Speakers

2.       Councillor Ebel addressed the committee and stated that this was the third application for 68 Old Shoreham Road within a relatively short period of time and ward councillors are objecting. The first was rejected in 2021 and then appealed and subsequently withdrawn. The second was withdrawn. The owners of 64, 66 and 68a objected to the previous applications but now include themselves as part of this application. In the first application the owner of 66 commented that the extra storeys would impact on the local amenity, privacy and be highly controversial and hugely damaging to the area. However, this application has magnified the impact by four. The proposal is similar to previous applications which were refused. The remodelling will result in complete alteration in appearance, changing their character to box shaped dull structures. If the committee is minded to grant planning permission can an additional condition be included to state that the remodelled buildings shall not be occupied by any new occupants until the works on all four buildings have been completed.

3.       Phillipa Payne addressed the committee as an objector stating that 5 local councillors and the Hove MP have strongly opposed the application, along with 18 objectors. The plans for 66 clearly show second floor rear balconies to each of the properties, which will allow residents to look directly into family homes and the care home at 108 The Drive. The raised roof heights, plus additional windows will result in four overbearing structures, dominating the street scene and lead to overlooking and an invasion of privacy. The proposals are not sympathetic to the surroundings. Site visits have not been made to neighbouring properties by the case officer. If approved the properties have a strong possibility of not being executed in full, with the HMO developer at 68 reverting back to original four storey modification. Duncan Hedges also shared the time as an objector and stated that they were speaking on behalf of neighbours. The loss of amenity to the neighbours will be lost forever if the proposal is granted. The proposal is incongruous, overbearing and not suitable for the location, and does not fit into the streetscene or local plan. The proposals add another storey to the existing buildings that will affect all the neighbouring homes. The proposals adds a second floor balconies that overlook bedrooms, homes and gardens, taking away privacy. Overlooking the care home was missed in the report. None of the neighbours spoken to have liked or approve the application. The neighbours rely upon and trust their elected representatives to safeguard their views.

4.       Colm McKee addressed the committee as agent acting on behalf of the applicant and showed a scheme that could be constructed under permitted development the planning permission would not be required, however the proposals are better. There is only a 42cm increase in the ridge heights. The scheme has evolved and is policy compliant.

The committee were requested to keep this in mind when considering any overlooking. There is no intensification of impact on amenities. The scheme is a good design in line with others in the street. The front build line has been increased by 65cms. Overshadowing will be the same as existing and numerous properties in the street have accommodation in the roof space.

Answers to Committee Member Questions

5.       Councillor Hills was informed that the supporting letters were not from the immediate vicinity.

Debate

6.       Councillor Theobald considered that the three red brick houses need remodelling, however, they were not keen on the design. The councillor considered the proposals to be too close to the boundaries and out of keeping with the area. The councillor requested that the applicant come back to committee with a better design.

7.       Councillor Moonan considered that all four buildings were coherent and however, they wanted assurance that the proposals would be built out. The councillor supported the application.

8.       Councillor Shanks considered the proposals reasonable and supported the application.

9.       Councillor Littman was informed that the condition requested by ward councillor Ebel was unreasonable.

Vote

10.      A vote was taken, and by 3 to 2, with 2 abstentions, and the Chair having a casting vote, the committee agreed to grant planning permission. (Councillor Ebel took no part in the discussions or vote).

11.      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.