Agenda item - BH2017/03863,Hove Business Centre Fonthill Road,Hove- Full Planning

Creation of additional floor to provide 4no office units (B1) with associated works.
RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

Ward Affected: Goldsmid

Creation of additional floor to provide 4no office units (B1) with associated works.

Officer Introduction

(1)       The Principal Planning Officer, Jonathan Puplett, introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to plans, elevational drawings, photographs and floor plans.

(2)       The main considerations in the determination of the application related to the principle of adding an additional floor comprising office units to the locally listed building, its impact on the appearance of the building and the setting of the adjacent Hove Station Conservation Area, its impact on neighbouring amenity, sustainability and transport issues.

            Public Speakers

(4)       Councillor O’Quinn submitted a written representation as she was not able to be present at the meeting, and this was read out by the Clerk:

            “I wish to object to this planning application for the creation of a new, partial 4th floor on the Du Barry building consisting of 4 offices, in the strongest possible terms.  There has been such a plethora of planning applications for this building in the last few years that it has been hard to establish what the present situation is. I am utterly amazed that we are expected to believe that on the one hand office space in the building is impossible to rent out and thus 15 flats are going to be built under Permitted Development, with no Affordable units, but on the other hand there is an application to build 4 new offices on the roof of this iconic building.  What a contradiction in terms!

“The plans for the offices mean that the western elevation and central elevation will no longer just be flat, as was the intention of the architects who originally designed this building. I note that an amended plan has been put in place as a response to the criticisms of the Heritage department, thus the offices will be set back from the parapet now. However, by the reduction of one issue others have been made more contentious, in that the proposed offices will now sit closer to the edge of the northern side of the building, which runs adjacent to the backs of properties in Newtown Road. Residents of Newtown Road will now suffer a loss of light, some properties more than others and also a loss of privacy due to the large windows that are intended to run along the north facing walls of the offices.

“I would also like to reiterate the issue of parking in this area, which is already significant due to its proximity to Hove Station and to developments already taking place in the area nearby. I find it hard to accept that Highways have stated that these offices do not intend to have a requirement for parking. Of course they will!  Staff and visitors alike will use visitor bays, which are already heavily oversubscribed.

“I can't state strongly enough how much I support local residents in their campaign to oppose this application - and others in the last few years. The applicants have created considerable confusion by putting in a number of applications, whether by design or not, and making endless changes to them.  I urge you to refuse this application, which is a further blow to the integrity of the building’s structure as a whole.  We need to take more care of these historically important buildings and not allow them be compromised by unnecessary developments. We also need to protect residents from the harmful effects of over development.”

(5)       Mr Rafferty spoke on behalf of the applicant and stated that the site had already been given planning permission and the scale of the application had been agreed in principle by the Committee. The proposed design had been altered to remove the glazing which could potentially overlook the neighbouring properties. While there was limited parking on site the section 106 contribution could be used to improve foot and cycle paths. The multiple applications submitted were as result of changing market conditions and not an attempt to obscure what was actually being proposed.

(6)       Councillor Mac Cafferty asked what in Mr Rafferty’s opinion had changed between the daylight report produced in 2015 which highlighted loss of light to ground floor windows in neighbouring properties and the current application.

(7)       Mr Rafferty responded that the proposed design had a slightly lower profile than the extant position but that the impact on daylight would be largely the same.  

            Questions to Officers

(8)       In response to Councillor Mac Cafferty, the Planning Officer stated that the Planning Inspector felt that the loss of light caused by the scheme was acceptable. Officers still felt that the loss of light was relevant to the application but the impact on neighbours was not enough to warrant refusal.

(9)       In Response to Councillor Morris, the Planning Officer stated that there was no specific condition to protect the decorative tiles during construction work but an additional condition could be added.

(10)     In response to Councillor Miller, the Planning Officer stated that there were no environmental health issues raised by the close proximity of the offices to flats as the offices were classed as B1 use which should be able to operate alongside residential use. Building Control would usually deal with sound proofing and it would not usually be added as a condition.

(11)     In response to Councillor Littman, the Planning Officer stated that permitted development rights did not have a test for whether office space was vacant or unwanted and the Council did not have any input in the decision to convert office space in the building into residential units. The loss of office space was regrettable as it was in very short supply in the city.

            Debate and Decision Making

(12)     Councillor Inkpin-Leissner stated that he saw no legal basis on which to refuse the application.

(13)     Councillor Theobald stated that the application would provide much needed office space and she was pleased that the rear glazing had been removed to limit overlooking.

(14)     A vote was taken and on a vote of 11 For and none against with 1 abstention planning permission was granted.

133.6  RESOVLED - That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report and is MINDED TO GRANT planning permission subject to a s106 Agreement and the conditions and informatives and for the reasons set out in the report.