Agenda item - BH2023/02163 - Shermond House, 58 - 59 Boundary Road, Hove - Full Planning

skip navigation and tools

Agenda item

BH2023/02163 - Shermond House, 58 - 59 Boundary Road, Hove - Full Planning


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




2.         Colin Wood addressed the committee as an objecting resident and stated that they were speaking on behalf of other residents. During the 18 months the application has been with the council the applicant has not contacted residents. In the amendments the large windows have been removed and a car park barrier has been erected to prevent use of the car park, cars are now parking to the east of Worcester villas. The application appears to be the same as the previous which was refused. The proposed metal side elevation panels could be easily removed, and windows inserted. The development is considered too large and overbearing. The committee were requested to refuse the application.


3.         Ward Councillor Sankey sent a speech to read out as follows: I’d like to raise objections and concerns about factors that are material to your consideration of the application. There are a number of issues raised which are viewed on balance as not presenting a sufficient reason for the application to be opposed. Most importantly, overdevelopment. Having a detached building set to the rear of a primary building goes against the urban grain. And given the openness of the existing area, represents overdevelopment. It would remove much needed parking provision for the area, given the mixed commercial and residential use. This massing of office space would present significant visual disruption to residents on Worcester Villas. Applications for two-storey developments to the rear of the buildings fronting Boundary Road have been refused in the past due to “scale, massing and site coverage”, having an “unduly dominant, discordant and unsympathetic relationship with the adjacent properties and an overbearing impact on the appearance of the wider area”. City Plan Part 2 requires office space to be suitable for subdivision and flexible. As officer report notes there is a tension with this application and that policy requirement. It is inflexible and does not lend itself to flexible use. This, combined with the long term availability of similar office space in the area leads me to conclude that this type of inflexible office space is not currently warranted and that taken together with the objections, this application should, on balance be refused.


4.         Simon Bareham addressed the committee as the agent acting on behalf of the applicant and stated that the previous application was refused for overlooking and this scheme has no windows. The first floor will have metal panels which are buttressed to give support. The size of the building has been taken into consideration, with the ground and first floors being sub divided. General improvements in the scheme include a green roof, a parking cover and will create approximately 18/19 jobs in area. The proposals overcome reasons for refusal. The committee were requested to agree the application.


Answers to Committee Member Questions


5.         Councillor Hamilton was informed by the objector that the proposals were 4 metres from the closest boundary.


6.         Councillor Cattell was informed by the case officer that the car park was defined by white lines. The agent informed the councillor that the car park was existing and was constructed at the same time as the building over it. The case officer noted that the 1972 planning permission included the car park.


7.         Councillor Fishleigh was informed by the Planning Manager that reasons for refusal needed to be reasonable.


8.         Councillor Hamilton was informed by the case officer that the report included conditions preventing change of use without planning permission.




9.         Councillor Nann considered the previous objections to the large windows, still remained as the large building will overlook residents’ gardens and that blocking the windows was insufficient. The councillor was against the application.


10.      Councillor Cattell did not consider the application to be overbearing on neighbouring properties as there was some screening on the boundary. The councillor supported the application.




11.      A vote was taken, and by 4 to 3, with 1 abstention, the committee agreed to grant planning permission. (Councillors Shanks and Theobald took no part in the vote or decision-making process).


12.      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.

Supporting documents:


Brighton & Hove City Council | Hove Town Hall | Hove | BN3 3BQ | Tel: (01273) 290000 | Mail: | how to find us | comments & complaints