Agenda item - BH2020/01619 - 55 Goldstone Crescent, Hove - Full Planning
navigation and tools
You are here - Home : Council and Democracy : Councillors and Committees : Agenda item
BH2020/01619 - 55 Goldstone Crescent, Hove - Full Planning
RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT
Ward Affected : Hove Park
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.
2. The main considerations in the determination of this application relate to the principle of development, affordable housing provision, density, design, landscaping and biodiversity, their impact on neighbouring amenity, the standard of accommodation, the impact on the highway, and sustainability.
3. Ward Councillor Brown spoke to the committee and stated that they objected to the application. The councillor considered that both the previous application at 57 and this application at 55 Goldstone Crescent should be considered at the same time. The applications will set a precedent in the area. The proposals are near other developments, but they are not the same. This is the wrong location. The application is considered to be an overdevelopment of the site, to be overbearing and to upset the street scene. The three parking spaces proposed are insufficient on the busy road where street parking is congested. There are no bus stops nearby. Under City Plan Part 1 the characteristics of the area need to be maintained; this application does not do that. This residential development is not in character. The councillor requested that the committee refuse the application.
Questions for speaker
4. Councillor Simson was informed that the neighbouring property was a bungalow, and the development would be overbearing on that dwelling.
5. Councillor Hills was informed that the nearest bus stop was in Woodruff Avenue some 200 metres away, where a limited service stopped.
6. Ian Coomber spoke to the committee as the applicant’s agent. The speaker considered that the application was similar to that at 57. The engagement with officers had been good. It was considered that the site was a windfall and the downsizing possibilities were good. It was noted that the area was not exclusively large houses. The impact on the neighbouring bungalow has been assessed and found acceptable by the case officer. There are sustainable transport links nearby. The speaker requested that the committee grant planning permission.
7. Councillor Hills considered that a mix of housing in the area would be better than just larger homes.
8. Councillor Miller considered the number of units to be good and the affordable housing contribution to be acceptable. The councillor noted that the report stated there would be no detrimental impact on the neighbouring bungalow and had seen this on a drive -by. The councillor supported the application.
9. A vote was taken and out of the 9 Members present the committee voted by 7 to 2 that planning permission be granted.
10. RESOLVED: That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report and resolves to be MINDED TO GRANT planning permission subject to a s106 agreement on the Heads of Terms set out in the report and the Conditions and Informatives as set out in the report, SAVE THAT should the s106 Planning Obligation not be completed on or before the 2nd October 2020 the Head of Planning is hereby authorised to refuse planning permission for the reasons set out in section 11.1 of the report.
- Header BH2020 01619 - 55 Goldstone Crescent, item 48D PDF 22 KB
- Plan BH2020 01619 - 55 Goldstone Crescent, item 48D PDF 247 KB
- Report BH2020 01619 - 55 Goldstone Crescent, item 48D PDF 259 KB
- Cllr Rep BH2020 01619 and 01620, item 48D PDF 132 KB
- BH2020 01619 - 55 Goldstone Crescent, item 48D PDF 2 MB
- Additional Councillor Comments app d 01619, item 48D PDF 18 KB