Agenda item - BH2018/01130 -Garages to the rear of 45 Sackville Road, Hove- Full Planning

Conversion and extension of triple garage to form 1no two bedroom single storey dwelling (C3) with external amenity space and provision of off street parking.

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Ward Affected: Central Hove

              Conversion and extension of triple garage to form 1no two bedroom single storey dwelling (C3) with external amenity space and provision of off-street parking.

              Officer Presentation

(1)          The Senior Planning Officer, Joanne Doyle, introduced the application with a presentation detailing the scheme by reference to plans, site plans, photographs elevational drawings and aerial views showing the site and its boundaries. Reference was also made to the additional representations received detailed in the Late/Additional Representations List. It was explained that the application site related to a single storey triple garage set amongst a row of garages on the western side of Brooker Place comprising car ports with an open form, used for the parking of vehicles. The plot of land containing the garage was set within the rear garden of no. 45 Sackville Road which has been converted into flats. This section of the western side of Brooker Place was characterised by single storey garages. The eastern side of Brooker Place consisted of the rear of the properties and garden spaces of Brooker Street. The north and south boundary walls to the existing garage on site, which extend around the garden to 45 Sackville Road, appeared to have a historic character.

(2)       It was further explained that the main considerations in determining this application related to the principle of the development, the design and appearance of the building, wider street scene and conservation area, the effect on the amenity of neighbouring residential occupiers, the standard of proposed accommodation, and transport and sustainability issues. Overall, subject to the proposed conditions to address remaining concerns, the scheme was considered to be acceptable, the proposed form of development was low key, was not considered to be contrary to policy and would provide an acceptable standard of accommodation, approval was therefore recommended.

            Public Speakers

(3)          Ms Perry-Riquet spoke on behalf of neighbouring objectors setting out their objections to the scheme. There had been a large number of objections to the proposed scheme, 45 in total, expressing grave concern in respect of loss of existing garden space, which provided a green lung. The existing space provided amenity space for the surrounding residential dwellings, a number of mature established trees would be lost and additionally there were grave concerns at the impact on the adjoining streets which would result giving rise to unacceptable levels of overspill parking.

(4)          Councillor Moonan stated that she shared residents’ concerns that this scheme was likely to set a precedent particularly when considered in the context of other development nearby and the constraints of the site. A number of trees would be lost and the proposals would result in pinch points at either end of the street. A more modest form of development would be much more acceptable. The number of letters of representation received indicated the level of local concerns in respect of the scheme.

(5)          Mr Wagstaff spoke on behalf of the applicants in support of their application. He explained that the submitted scheme had been the result of a lot of dialogue with the planning department and there was no planning policy conflict, the scheme had been well designed and the requirements of the traffic transport team met. The  resulting development would be car free.

            Questions of Officers

(6)          Councillor Shanks sought clarification in respect of pedestrian access to the site and it was confirmed that there was pedestrian access from both Brooker Street and Sackville Road. Councillor Shanks also sought clarification regarding location of the bin storage areas.

(7)          Councillor Yates asked whether access to the site was adopted public highway and it was confirmed that it was.

(8)          Councillor Shanks sought clarification regarding whether and on what grounds similar developments had been refused or granted. It was confirmed in answer to further questions that the open car port areas had also been capable of being used for commercial storage; also in respect of any existing garden space which would be lost in consequence of the proposals, the amenity space which would be attached to the proposed development and the dimensions of the proposed dwelling.

(9)          The Chair, Councillor Hill, enquired whether a white rendered finish was proposed.

(10)       Councillor Miller enquired regarding the location of windows it appeared to him that three of the windows would face directly onto a fence and another would look directly onto a neighbouring garden

              Debate and Decision Making Process

(11)       Councillor Miller stated that he did not support the officer recommendation as he did not consider the design of the proposed development to be acceptable, nor that it enhanced the conservation area in which it was set. Councillor Miller was also of the view that more could have been done to protect the existing planting bordering the site.

(12)       Councillor Littman considered that whilst loss of trees bordering the site was regrettable the arboriculturist had raised no objections. The Planning Manager, Paul Vidler, confirmed that need to preserve and enhance the setting of the conservation area had been given considerable weight by officers in arriving at their recommendations.

(13)       A vote was taken and on a vote of 6 to 2 planning permission was granted.

46.5       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 also set out in the report.

              Note: Councillors Mac Cafferty and Simson were not present during consideration of the above application.