Agenda item - BH2022/02102 - Shermond House, 58 - 59 Boundary Road, Hove - Full Planning

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

          Speakers

2.       Mr Wood spoke on behalf of neighbouring objectors stating that a need for additional office accommodation had not been demonstrated. The proposed scheme would be very close to the boundary to the rear and would create a sense of enclosure, overlooking and would result in loss of amenity for neighbouring residents.

1. Councillor Nann, spoke in his capacity as a Local Ward Councillor on behalf of himself and his fellow Ward Councillor, Councillor Sankey. He echoed the concerns of residents. He stated that the use of obscure glazing would not remove the sense of overlooking. The current city plan had been put together before the pandemic and since that time working arrangements had changed considerably, he queried whether there was as great a need for office accommodation now.

4.       Mr Bareham spoke on behalf of the applicants in support of their application. He explained that this scheme which would utilise a largely unused car park was sympathetic and would address an identified need for high quality office development where much of that available was old and unsuitable. Significant amendments had been made and he confirmed that the rear first floor windows would be removed in response to concerns, this was a sustainable use of an existing site and the building on the existing garden area and green roof would provide improved surface run-off. The scheme met parking standards requirements.

          Answers to Committee Member Questions

5.       Councillor Cattell was shown copies of the revised plans showing revisions to the scheme and the windows which were to be removed.

6.       In answer to questions by Councillor Robinson it was confirmed that the application could not be deferred to allow changes to be made.

7.       Councillor Hamilton and Councillor Lyons sought clarification regarding use of the existing car park. It was unclear to them what the current level of use was and who had access to it. It was explained Mr Bareham on behalf of the applicants that the parking area had never been used much but that the retail unit had several spaces.

9.       Councillor Hamilton expressed concern that if the site had a Class E use it could potentially be used for a number of other purposes in future including housing which would be located very close to the existing neighbouring development.

10.      The Case Officer confirmed that condition 13 limited the use to that of an office.

          Debate

11.      Councillor Allen stated that he did not consider that the issue of overlooking had been successfully overcome.

12.      Councillor Hamilton had concerns that this permission could be a gateway to seeking to convert the development to housing in future. He did not consider this scheme to be acceptable.

13.      Councillor Lyons stated that he did not consider that an office need had been identified or that this scheme was acceptable.

14.      Councillor Cattell stated that she had no problem with the principle of development as she considered it would make use of a carpark in a sustainable location but did not consider that this scheme was acceptable. Each application needed to be considered on its individual merits and a better, more responsive scheme could be more acceptable.

          Vote

15.      A vote was taken, and the 8 members present when the vote was taken voted by 7 to 1 abstention against the officer recommendation.

16.      Councillor Cattell proposed that the application be refused on the grounds of unacceptable impact on amenity by virtue of the actual and perceived overlooking of neighbouring residents of Worcester Villas and the existing block. The motion was seconded by Councillor Allen. It was agreed that the final wording would be agreed with the Planning Manager.

17.      A recorded vote was then taken and Councillors Allen, Cattell, Earthey, Hamilton, Loughran, Lyons and Robinson voted that the application be refused, and Councillor Pickett abstained.

18.      RESOLVED – The Committee voted to refuse the application on the grounds of unacceptable impact on amenity by virtue of the actual and perceived overlooking of neighbouring residents of Worcester Villas and the existing block. It was agreed that the final wording would be agreed with the Planning Manager.

          Note: Having spoken in objection to the application Councillor Nann left the meeting and took no part in the debate or decision making.