Agenda item - BH2018/02786- Hove Manor, Hove Street, Hove - Full Planning

Erection of a single storey extension at roof level to create 2no three bedroom dwellings & 1no two bedroom dwelling (C3) with external terraces.

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Ward Affected: Cental Hove

Erection of a single storey extension at roof level to create 2no three bedroom dwellings & 1no two bedroom dwelling (C3) with external terraces

Officer Presentation

(1)          The Principal Planning Officer, Stewart Glassar, introduced the application and gave a detailed presentation by reference to site plans, floor plans, elevational drawings and photographs detailing the proposed scheme. Samples of proposed materials were also displayed.

(2)          It was noted that Hove Manor was a large, early 20th century, purpose built block of flats with ground floor commercial uses, on the east side of Hove Street. It was situated in the Old Hove Conservation Area and overlooked the Pembroke and Princes Conservation Area, both of which predominantly comprised late 19th century 2 storey housing, although other mid-rise blocks are peppered within these areas along with surviving earlier origins of that part of Hove. The properties to the immediate north, Regent House and Audley House, were included on the Council's list of Local Heritage Assets, as was the flint wall forming the southern boundary to this site (remnants of the garden wall to the former Hove Manor that occupied this site), and the more distant No3, Hove Street. Slightly further away were Barford Court at 157 Kingsway and Hove Library on Church Road which were listed Grade II. Due to its height and footprint this property was already a dominant element of the street scene and could be seen in views from neighbouring streets, however the use of red brick provided an element of association with its setting. This application sought permission to erect an additional storey to create 2no three bedroom flats and 1no two bedroom flat (C3) with external terraces.

(3)          The main considerations in the determination of this application related to the principle of the proposed additional residential units, the impact on the character and appearance of the proposal on the building and the Old Hove Conservation Area, the setting of the Pembroke and Princes Conservation Area, the impact on neighbouring amenity, the standard of accommodation to be provided, sustainability and transport issues. An amended floorplan had been received during the course of the application reducing the width of the terraces to reduce overlooking of the existing balconies and side facing windows to the storeys below as had additional drawings with site sections and a Daylight & Sunlight Assessment.

(4)          Whilst it was considered that the proposed additional storey would introduce greater bulk and massing at roof level this would however be set away from the existing parapet. The existing block overshadowed some of the neighbouring windows, especially at ground floor level. At first floor level at Vallance (or higher at Princes Court opposite), the proposed additional storey would introduce greater bulk and massing at roof level and would result in a small loss of light to neighbouring windows but as this would be of a similar nature to the views from the existing fifth floor windows it was not considered that this would result in harmful overlooking. The Daylight and Sunlight assessment provided had demonstrated that the proposed additional storey would not result in harmful overshadowing. Given the set back of the proposed development from the parapet of the existing block it was considered that the proposed additional storey would not result in significant harm of a degree sufficient to warrant refusal of the application and approval was therefore recommended subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report.

            Public Speakers

(5)          Mr St John spoke on behalf of the Board of Hove Manor setting out their objections to the proposed scheme. He explained that the Board representing residents of the building took pride in maintaining its art deco appearance and had spent a decade returning it to its original appearance. The proposed scheme would compromise the appearance of the building and represented an un-neighbourly form of development.

(6)          Councillor Moonan spoke in her capacity as a Local Ward Councillor setting out her objections to the scheme. Whilst not opposed to the principle of further development of the site she considered that the scheme as currently put forward was too bulky and that the design and materials proposed were out of keeping with the character of the Old Hove Conservation Area. Councillor Moonan considered that with some further work the application could be acceptable but that in its current form it would result in an increase in overlooking and loss of amenity to neighbouring residents and would result in loss of of amenity and light to residents in Vallance Gardens and to residential properties to the north of Hove Manor. Having addressed the Committee, Councillor Moonan withdrew from the meeting and took no part in consideration or determination of the application. She considered that it might be advantageous to carry out a site visit prior to determining the application.

(7)          Mr Mohsin spoke on behalf of the applicants in support of their application. He explained that the application had been the subject of a pre-application process and consultation with planning officers and had been amended throughout the process in response to address issues and objections raised. The resultant scheme had sought to address those matters and was considered to be sympathetic to the host building.

              Questions of Officers

(8)          Councillor Miller referred to the lift arrangement proposed seeking confirmation regarding whether where the overrun would be located and access arrangements to the proposed additional units. Also, in relation to servicing arrangements. Councillor O’Quinn shared similar concerns. It was explained that the arrangements proposed were intended to provide improved facilities and also sought to respect the line of the existing fenestration. Also, to the proposed set back and location of the balconies and the assessment which had been made regarding the impact on and degree of overlooking which could occur to neighbouring properties.

(9)          The Chair, Councillor Mac Cafferty, asked whether in view of the nature of the queries raised Members wished to defer consideration of the application in order to carry out a site visit but that option was rejected.

(10)       In answer to questions it was confirmed that details of materials to be used would be conditioned and would be brought back to a Chair’s meeting for approval.

(11)       Councillor C Theobald requested to see further floorplans showing the height and configuration of the additional storey proposed.

              Debate and Decision Making Process

(12)       Councillor Miller referred to the proposed set-back and to the amendments to the scheme which had been made to date. Notwithstanding them he considered that the scheme was still too bulky particularly at the side nearest to Vallance Gardens where there would be very little space between that elevation and the nearest neighbouring block. In his view that would have a detrimental impact both on neighbouring amenity and on the Old Hove Conservation Area.

(13)       Councillor Littman noted that the heritage team were broadly happy with the proposals and welcomed the changes that had been made particularly to the roofscape but noted that they were also of the view that the revised alignment of the windows could be improved further.

(14)       Councillor C Theobald stated that she did not consider that the proposed form of development was in-keeping with the host building and could not therefore support the officer recommendation.

(15)       Councillor O’Quinn was of the view that there were a number of issues remaining to be addressed in relation to the set-back of the building and its bulk and massing in relation to neighbouring development and the setting of the conservation area. She considered that further improvements to the scheme could still be made.

(16)       Councillor Hamilton stated that he did not consider that this scheme respected the art deco host building or the conservation area and considered therefore that the application should be refused.

(17)       In answer to questions in relation to the Council’s most recent housing land supply position as published in the SHLAA update when considering the planning balance in determining applications increased weight should be given to housing delivery and there should be a presumption in favour of sustainable development unless it was considered that a scheme would result in demonstrable harm or have a significant adverse impact.

(18)       In view of the points raised during discussion, the Chair, Councillor Mac Cafferty sought the Committees’ view regarding whether they wished to defer consideration of the application in order for further discussions to take place with the applicant. Members expressed the view however that they wished to determine the application.

(19)       A votewas taken and the 6 members of the Committee who were present when the vote was taken voted unanimously that planning permission be refused. Councillor Miller then proposed an alternative recommendation that planning permission be refused on grounds that the proposed form of development (particularly that to the side) would result in significant harm to the conservation area in which it sat by virtue of its mass bulk and design. The proposal was seconded by Councillor O’Quinn and a further vote was then taken in respect of the alternative recommendation. The 6 Members of the Committee present voted that planning permission be refused.

145.3    RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report however it agrees that Planning Permission be refused on the grounds that the existing form of development would cause significant harm to the neighbouring conservation area by virtue of its bulk, mass and design. The final wording of the reasons for refusal to be determined by the Planning Manager in consultation with the proposer and seconder prior to circulation of the decision letter.

              Note: Having spoken in objection to the application in her capacity as a Local Ward Councillor, Councillor Moonan then withdrew from the meeting and took no part in consideration of the application or the decision making process.