Agenda item - BH2023/01017 - Studio Workshop at rear of 49 Elm Drive, Hove - Householder Planning Consent

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

Speakers

2.    Philip Bryman addressed the committee as an objecting resident and stated they represented some twenty families. Overlooking is an issue as is parking in the area. The retrospective application is not considered to be good for the area. Common sense should be used as the building is too close to the boundary, is overbearing and cramped on the site. The development is against policy in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Previous applications have extended the height with larger extensions. It was requested that an article 4 be placed on the property for no further extensions. The resident stated they spoke for neighbours. The development has caused great anxiety.

3.    Ward Councillor Hewitt addressed the committee and stated that they objected to the development as it was too large in this space for a garage and something smaller. The structure is too high and can be seen from surrounding roads. The development is overlooking and overshadowing the neighbours, who also have reduced light. Access for emergency vehicles is an issue. Parking is limited, which may lead to double parking and over obstructions. The increased height will set a precedent. Previous applications at the property have been withdrawn. The committee were requested to refuse the application.

4.    Paul Heath addressed the committee as the applicant and stated that they had tried to reach out to local residents and the precedent for back garden developments had been set already. The development replaced large garages and bin store. Previous applications that were withdrawn were completely different from this application with a new roof that is smaller but higher than the existing. The proposed clay tile roof will be better with conservation style dormers. The development requires no underpinning and is a good design.

5.    The Planning Manager clarified that the photos handed to the committee were not verified by the council officers. Covenants were not a planning issue. Parking matters were not considered as this is an existing property. A previous application was refused for too many windows not overshadowing.

Answers to Committee Member Questions

6.    Councillor Cattell was informed by the applicant that the ground floor of the property was open plan with one bedroom and the first floor has a new bathroom and bedroom. The dwelling is a two-bedroom property.

7.    Councillor Robinson was informed by the applicant that the windows do look at other properties. The Planning Manager stated that the windows do not look directly into other property windows and the windows are obscure glazed at first floor.

8.    Councillor Theobald was informed that the height increase was by 1.8 metres and the property was a separate dwelling from the main house following the issuing of a Certificate of Lawfulness proving the property to be a dwelling.

9.    Councillor Loughran was informed by the applicant that the structures formerly on the plot were a summer house and a small wall. These have now been removed and trees for screening have been proposed.

10. Councillor Cattell was informed that there were no Permitted Development (PD) rights for the property and any further development would require planning permission.

11. Councillor Miller was informed that any new Velux windows would require planning permission.

Debate

12. Councillor Allen considered the proposals to improve the dwelling and they supported the application.

13. Councillor Miller supported the application.

14. Councillor Theobald considered that the change from studio to property was unfair on the neighbours. The roof was visible from neighbouring gardens. The two-storey property was too big.

15. Councillor Loughran considered the proposed property too big and takes up too much space, causing harm to the neighbours from overshadowing. The property has adverse effects on the residents as it is visible to many. The property is overbearing and damages the townscape and character of the area. The councillor was against the application.

Vote

16. A vote was taken, and by 5 to 4 against the committee agreed to grant planning permission. (Councillor Fishleigh had left the meeting and took no part in the discussions or vote).

17. 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.