Retrospective house permission at 23C Shirley Drive, Hove

The property and access

The basement bedrooms had limited light, one bedroom now has an enlarged window, and access was unauthorised.

“Councillor Pickett was informed that the balcony, belonging to the host house over the access (preventing emergency vehicle access), was a BC issue, as was the installation of sprinklers. It was noted that the new window in the remaining basement bedroom was not large, but acceptable in terms of BRE light levels.”

“Councillor Thomson was informed that there was no basement in the original planning permission, and therefore the permission had fallen away. The bedrooms in the basement had little light, and now it is proposed that two are used as storage with no windows, and one is a bedroom with an enlarged window. The agent confirmed that they were looking for a suitable solution to avoid demolition.”

Minutes

Earlier permission and enforcement

The original permission did not include a basement, an enforcement notice had been served, and demolition was raised during consideration.

“Councillor Cattell was informed that the inspector’s decision was based on a technical point in the appeal submission given the limitations of the chosen ground of appeal, and an enforcement notice has been served. A breach of conditions could result in an enforcement action.”

Minutes

Speakers at the meeting

A resident, a ward councillor and the agent speaking for the receivers addressed the committee.

Members debated the proposal

Members discussed the poor design, safety, habitability, planning precedent, building control matters and whether demolition would be sustainable.

“Councillor Cattell considered it was a real shame about the design. However, demolition was not sustainable. In the principle the property was acceptable, and there is an extant permission. Setting a precedent to build without planning permission was not likely and retrospective applications were unusual.”

“Councillor Thomson expressed concerns at the building without permission; however, they supported the application and considered that demolition would not be sustainable.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee voted by seven to two to grant planning permission, subject to the conditions and Informatives.

“A vote was held, and by 7 to 2 the committee agreed to grant planning permission.”

“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.”

Minutes