Agenda item - BH2025/00877 - 13-14 Sydney Street, Brighton - Full Planning

1.      The case officer introduced the application to the committee.

Speakers

2.   Hugo Butterworth addressed the committee as a resident and stated that they represented the residents of Tidy Street, and they considered the proposals to be an overdevelopment and against policy. The two-storey extension is too big, and more than others in the area, which encroaches on 38, 39 and 40 Tidy Street to the rear. The development will result in a lack of privacy and will be out of character. Zoe Robinson addressed the committee as a resident, and they considered the development to be out of character in amongst the back-to-back houses. The three storeys with pitch roof are unprecedented in the area and will obstruct views. The development will offer a faceless wall to the rear. The scale and massing will be disproportionate to the area. The front elevation will be detrimental to the neighbours.

3.   Ward Councillor McLeay addressed the committee and stated that they supported the residents, and they considered the shop front changes were not enough, out of scale and character. The extra storey is inconsistent with the small-scale neighbours. The existing flat roofed rear extension is being used to extend this development other three storeys. The pattern of the hill means the height and the bulk are not good in this conservation area. The scale is disproportionate, and it is not the case that there have been no complaints about the noise and smells from the current use. The committee are requested to refuse the application. If the committee agree to grant planning permission, then please add a condition to prevent the building being used as a house of multiple occupancy (HMO).

4.   Nick Stickland addressed the committee as the agent acting on behalf of the applicant and stated that they had been working together with the planning officers since the preapplication was submitted. The applicant wants to improve the current building, bringing back consistency. The proposal increases density, however, that is fitting for the city centre. The natural light will be good for future occupiers. The development is set back from the rear boundary with the first-floor roof terrace set back as well. The daylight assessment has been undertaken and the proposals match others. The design has been carefully considered.

5.   The case officer informed the committee that the development was set back from the rear boundary. The terrace was also set back, with screening to prevent overlooking. Views are not protected, and on balance are not significant enough to warrant a refusal. With regard to noise and smells, the Environmental Health officer has been involved, and the proposals include a new flue. There could be a condition regarding short terms lets if Councillors so wished, which would then require planning permission.

Answers to Committee Member Questions

6.   Councillor Theobald was informed that there are some three storey buildings in the area. The proposed frontage will include bay windows, sash windows and two shop fronts.

7.   Councillor Earthey was informed that the original building was demolished and replaced sometime in the 1960s and there was no original building left. The proposals are recommended for approval as the existing detracts from the conservation area. It was not considered that the development was setting a precedent for more than two storeys in the street.

8.   Councillor Pickett was informed that the proposals were designed to have the least impact on the buildings to the rear. The application has been found to have no significant impacts on light and outlook. The terrace screen is considered acceptable. The roof lights to be added will have sky views only and are considered acceptable under policy. The privacy screening will be as high as a regular garden boundary fence limiting views. It is considered that there will be some overshadowing at sunrise, and in the early morning but not after. The chimney height will be increased on neighbouring property, and the flue will be extended into third floor roof. Any changes to the flue will require planning permission.

9.   Councillor Nann was informed that the roof terrace by condition cannot be increased, and the privacy screening needs to be in place before use.

10. Councillor Robinson was informed that the roof lights will in the top section of the roof.

Debate

11. Councillor Cattell noted the daylight/sunlight report recorded minimal/little loss of light and balcony screening was good. The North Laine roofscapes are a key part of the views in the area. The proposed shop fronts are good. The councillor supported the application.

12. Councillor Nann considered the current building to be a blot-on-the-landscape and the development a restoration. The councillor supported the application.

13. Councillor Theobald stated they were divided over the development. There is other three storey buildings and the rear of the proposals has been pushed back. It was noted that the Heritage team were happy with the development. The councillor was sorry if the scheme affects the properties to the rear in Tidy Street.

14. Councillor Pickett considered the current building to be ugly; however, they understood resident’s issues. The councillor supported the application.

15. Councillor Robinson noted the Heritage and sunlight discussions. The councillor supported the application.

16. Councillor Earthey considered when weighing up the scheme they supported the application.

17. Councillor Sheard considered it was natural to have two and three storey buildings in the area. There is currently a notable gap in the street. The councillor felt sorry for the residents of Tidy Street however, they considered the development added to the area and supported the application.

Vote

18. A vote was held, and the committee agreed unanimously to grant planning permission.

19. 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.