Planning Comment June 09
Report of activities 23rd April 09 to 3rd June 09
CAG – 2 meetings, on 28th April and 19th May. The Old Market application was again discussed on the 28th and the Group reiterated its view (by 14 votes, 1 against and 1 abstention) that the extension would be overbearing and dominate the local townscape. Its previous recommendation for refusal on the grounds that the tests in the Council’s Local Plan HE1,HE3, and HE6 and government guidance PPG 15 were not satisfied was therefore confirmed. HCS supported the Brunswick and Adelaide Group in its objections to the application, as agreed by a majority of the Committee. The Regency Society abstained in view of differences within its Planning Sub-Committee. The application was refused by the Planning Committee on the 18th May on the grounds inter alia that it “neither reflects the scale and appearance of the surrounding area, nor is it sympathetic with the character and appearance of the Brunswick Town Conservation Area, having a harmful impact on the townscape”. The decision has caused controversy and is being appealed by the Applicant. Certainly the future of the Old Market as a venue is currently in doubt, but alternative proposals after consultation with BAARG, HCS, RS, BS and other CAG members may be the way forward. No-one wants to see the building deteriorate or be left unused.
At its meeting on the 19th May CAG considered several Hove applications as follows:
00814 – Land to rear of 37/38 Cromwell Road – reapplication for new 5 storey block of 4 flats .HCS felt that the proposed block was far too big for the site, there was very little amenity space and the previous reasons for refusal had not been addressed. A mature sycamore was in danger should building proceed. CAG recommended refusal on the grounds of lack of design quality.
03990 – Hove Advent Church 6 Hove Place – demolition of existing Church and erection of 3 storey development of 3 flats – HCS thought it an overdevelopment of the site and detrimental to the area and in particular the adjoining building Leicester Lodge, there were overlooking issues, and the plans were insufficiently detailed. CAG recommended refusal of the application for demolition and emphasised the need for a distinctive building to replace the Church. It also asked for the inadequacy of the plans to be recorded.
00713 – 17 Osborne Villas – erection of 2 storey side extension - initially HCS had no objection – the extension is laid back from the road, is relatively minor and we considered it did not affect the character and appearance of the CA. However there were numerous objections from neighbours and CAG recommended refusal as being out of character with the Conservation Area, contrary to planning policy, and setting a regrettable precedent if consent was granted. The application was refused by the Council Planning Committee on the 29th May as being contrary to policies HE6 and QDF14 of the Local Plan. “The spaces between the more spacious villa developments within the Cliftonville conservation area (are) seen to be an important part of its character and it is considered that this would be compromised by the addition of a two storey side wing extension.”
*See reference to Tongdean Road/Avenue applications below
Pavement Obstructions/A Boards
After the residents’ deputation re Pavement Obstructions/A boards to the Licensing Committee on the 24 April, A-boards, tables, chairs and other trader’s items will not be allowed if the pavement width is reduced to less than 1.3 metres, and traders will be limited to one A board on the pavement directly outside their business. The whole issue will be examined by a Scrutiny Panel and its findings then considered by the Licensing Committee. The Council is between a rock and a hard place in trying to balance the complaints of pedestrians (particularly disabled ones) with its support of traders trying to earn a living in the credit crunch.
Street Trading rules
The Council is proposing to change these to prohibit certain streets – in Hove, streets south of Portland Road, Sackville Road, Church Road and Western Road, with consent streets being streets north of these same Roads. George Street Hove falls within an exception to the prohibited streets area and would therefore be a designated consent street if the changes are implemented. Representations from the public should be made by the 25th June to the Assistant Director of Public Safety at BandH Council. So the stalls at the Blatchington Road end of George Street are likely to remain unless representations are made to the Assistant Director, Public Safety at B andH Council. . .
Sackville Place
Parkridge Developments’ revised planning application for Sackville Place has now been registered under No 00761 with a target decision date of 14th July and will presumably come before CAG in the near future. It would be helpful if Committee members could view the plans on line or in the Planning Office so we can form an agreed HCS view.
Appeals
*4 Tongdean Road – partial demolition and erection of new house and access road
Refused. The Inspector’s reasons include failure to preserve or enhance the character of the Conservation Area, obtrusiveness, and unneighbourliness, (QD27 of the local Plan). An application has now been made for 9 Tongdean Road – 01161 – demolition of existing garage and erection of new house and access road; and 40 Tongdean Avenue – 00838 – erection of 3 storey house on land between 36 and 40. These are bound to come before CAG so Committee members comments would be welcome.
CO 01/06/2009