Agenda item - BH2023/02789 - 10 Meadow Close, Hove - Full Planning

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

Answers to Committee Member Questions

2.         Councillor Theobald was informed that the development was 1m from the boundary with the neighbour.

3.         Councillor Earthey was informed that the red site boundary line had been corrected and the height of the neighbouring property was considered to be sufficiently accurate but could not be required to be surveyed through planning.

4.         Councillor Loughran was informed that the proposed front elevation mixture of materials and styles was considered acceptable. The agent considered the hanging tiles and mock Tudor effects to add interest. The agent confirmed that policy SPD17 was taken into account.

5.         Councillor Robinson was informed by the agent that the front elevation porch was to provide a covered entrance to the property and was common in the area.

6.         Councillor Allen was informed by the agent that the existing dwelling was erected in 1954 and the proposals were within scale. The case officer noted that it was common in the area to demolish the existing property and erect a large replacement.

Debate

7.         Councillor Theobald considered the design good, even though the front elevation façade was not. The councillor supported the application.

8.         Councillor Allen stated that ‘McMansion’ meant that the design was incoherent.

9.         Councillor Cattell noted there were many different designs in the area and design varied. A better garage door was requested.

Vote

10.      A vote was taken, and by 6 to 4 against the committee agreed the recommendations. (Councillor Allen voted against the application).

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.