Agenda item - BH2020/01791 - 28-29 George Street, Hove - Full Planning

1.    It was noted that an in-depth presentation had been provided by officers in advance of the meeting and was included on the council website detailing the scheme by reference to site plans, elevational drawings and photographs which showed the proposed scheme in the context of neighbouring development. The main considerations in the determination of this application relate to the impact of the physical alterations on the character and appearance of the host building and wider area (including part of the Cliftonville Conservation Area); and the potential impact on the amenities of local residents.

Speakers

2.    Mr Patel spoke to the committee on behalf of local residents. The speaker requested the committee balance the need for the development, George Street and the conservation area next door. The wall to the rear of the properties is approximately 200 years old and runs for 200m. The main objections are the proposal would be overbearing for the properties to the rear, noise, loss of privacy, sunlight and daylight issues. The proposal will allow overlooking of neighbours, especially the bedrooms. The roof terrace harms the setting and is against policy. If permission is granted it will cause harm to the conservation area and the environment.

3.    Ward Councillor Wilkinson objected to the application on the grounds of impact on the neighbours. The proposal would be overbearing and contrary to policy. The flat roof to the rear of the application site will be the same level as neighbouring bedrooms. The proposal is too close to the rear. No noise and disturbance are acceptable under policy. The proposed screening is not sufficient.

4.    Ward Councillor Moonan noted that the approval at 53 George Street had a reduced roof terrace. It considered that the same issues apply at the application site. The committee were requested to reduce the roof terrace by 2m as a buffer space. All new development should respect the site and surrounding area. The rear wall is important and should be valued. The committee are requested to add a condition to reduce the terrace if the application is permitted.

5.    Huw James spoke as the applicant’s agent and noted the application was for new rear windows and rear screening. The development is proposed to improve the issues for the neighbours to the rear. The flats being created are lawful development. The shops at the site closed due to COVID-19. The owner now wishes to invest in the site with a new shop front in the future. The proposed screening is to prevent overlooking. The terrace cannot be restricted. The alternative would be no screening. To clarify the screen will be attached to the roof not the rear wall.

Questions for officers

6.    Councillor Hugh-Jones was informed that an alteration to the 2m reduction would be too much to be considered in this application?

7.    The Planning Manager requested the committee to consider the application as submitted.

8.    The case officer noted that other developments in George Street were new and thereby subject to control. This property is not. The roof terrace is already accessible.

9.    Councillor Childs was informed that a change to the fence would normally be subject to consultation. It is considered that this would be a step to far.

10.Councillor Shanks was informed that by condition the terrace would be attached to the roof.

11.Councillor Hugh-Jones was informed that the Members should determine the application before them.

12.Councillor Childs was informed that the application at 53 George Street was approved last year and was for a new development where conditions could be applied. The application site was built in the 1980s and permitted development allows development, so no conditions can be applied here. The new windows are not considered unreasonable and they will allow more light into the new flats.

Debate

13.Councillor Childs stated they did not support the application as they had concerns relating to the wall and overlooking.

14.The Chair invited the Members to vote and of the 8 present a vote of 7 to 1 permission was granted. (Councillors Henry and Miller were not present for the discussions and subsequent vote).

15.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.