Agenda item - To consider and determine planning applications on the plans list

(copy circulated separately).

(i)               TREES

 

261.1        There were none.

 

(ii)              SUBSTANTIAL OR CONTROVERSIAL DEVELOPMENT OR DEPATURES FROM POLICY

 

A.              Application BH2010/03540, Former Flexer Sacks site, Wellington Road, Portslade - Change of use of all floors to mixed use development comprising ground floor-leisure (D2) first floor – part leisure (D2) part offices (B1) part parking area. Second floor offices (B1) and second floor extension to south section comprising vertical circulation core ground to second floors with lift motor room at roof level. Also, external refurbishment and alterations to all elevations.

 

(1)             The Senior Planning Officer, Mr Everest, introduced the application and presented plans, photos and elevational drawings. The application site had been vacant since 2000 and as there had been no interest for industrial usage during this time, and the proposal was to include a climbing centre that met an identified need in the city, the proposal to change the use of the site was acceptable. There was no contribution to sustainable transport required as the current scheme would have a lower transport demand than a previously approved scheme in 2008. The Section 106 Agreement sustainable transport contribution for the 2008 application had been waived following a Committee decision. Therefore it was not considered appropriate to request a contribution on a smaller scheme. Solar panels would be provided on the roof, there were no objections from Environmental Health regarding noise and the proposals would bring a vacant building back into use.

 

                  Questions/Matters on Which Clarification was Sought

 

(2)             Councillor Kemble asked why current photos of the site were not displayed. He also asked what assurances there were that this application would be implemented. Ms Woodward replied that there could be no guarantees that applicants would implement permissions to develop. However, the Section 106 agreement needed to be concluded before planning permission was issued and the terms of the s106 would be enforceable should the development then take place. Mr Everest added that the photos as displayed were for the Committee to be able to see the appearance of the building, which was currently covered up with scaffolding.

 

(3)             Councillor Steedman asked why a transport contribution was not asked for now if it was relevant to ask for it in 2008. Mr Everest replied that had the decision to waiver the contribution to sustainable transport in 2008 not existed then the Authority would be asking for a contribution with this application. However, the 2008 decision had taken precedence and was a material planning consideration.

 

(4)             Councillor Hamilton noted that the contributions had not been waived because they were not needed, but because the applicant had argued that the 2008 scheme would not be viable with these contributions. He asked if it was common to agree applications with no contributions. Mr Everest replied that, whilst there were other examples, it was not usual, but because there was a lower transport requirement for this application it was not justifiable to ask for a transport contribution.

 

(5)             Councillor McCaffery asked if the letters of support were individual letters and Mr Everest advised that they were unique and individual letters.

 

                  Debate and Decision Making Process

 

(6)             Councillor Hamilton thought that this was a good scheme and supported bringing this building back into usefulness. He was very concerned about the situation with the Section 106 agreement however and was unhappy that no monies were to be paid for sustainable transport improvements. Because of this he could not vote for the application and would be abstaining.

 

(7)             Councillor Steedman agreed with this reasoning and would also be abstaining.

 

(8)             Councillor Mrs Theobald stated that the site had been vacant for around 10 years and would provide an excellent facility for local young people. She felt it was a very good use and would be supporting the application.

 

(9)             Ms Woodward addressed the Committee and stated that an alteration to one of the terms of the Section 106 Agreement had been agreed with officers to read, “to secure the refurbishment of the B1 office accommodation to a standard that would provide modern office accommodation prior to the occupation of the ground, first and second floor leisure use (D2)”. Approval of the application would include this amendment.

 

(10)           A vote was taken and on a vote of 5 for, 0 against and 6 abstentions minded to grant planning permission was granted subject to the applicant entering into a section 106 agreement and the conditions and informatives listed in the report.

 

261.2        RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the recommendation set out in paragraph 8 of the report and resolves that it is minded to grant planning permission subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 Planning Obligation Agreement, the conditions and informatives listed in the report and an amendment to the terms of the Section 106 agreement to read:

 

(1) To secure the refurbishment of the B1 office accommodation to a standard that would provide modern office accommodation prior to the occupation of the ground, first and second floor leisure use (D2).

 

(iii)             MINOR APPLICATIONS

 

B.              Application BH2010/03909, 26 St Mary’s Square, Brighton – Conversion of garage to study and installation of new window in place of garage doors.

 

(1)             Ms Burnett introduced the application and presented plans, photos and elevational drawings. The application was in the East Cliff Conservation Area. As the proposal would be recessed and stepped back from the frontage it was considered that there would be no detrimental harm to residential amenity. There were no concerns raised by the Highways Department in terms of highway safety or capacity.

 

                  Questions/Matters on Which Clarification was Sought

 

(2)             Councillor Cobb asked why planning permission was needed for this conversion. Ms Burnett replied that unusually permitted development rights had been removed from this Square in the 1980s and so permission was needed.

 

(3)             Councillor Simson asked whether all of the garages in the Square looked the same, and whether there would still be space to park a car in front of the garage and Ms Burnett confirmed that there would be a space for a parked car on the driveway and the garages were of a similar style in the Square.

 

                  Public Speakers

 

(4)             Mr Sully addressed the Committee and stated he represented resident’s views. There would be an unacceptable impact on parking caused by this application and would set a precedent for others in the Square to do the same. This could result in 34 extra cars on the highway. The development at Royal Sussex County Hospital would also impact on parking and he felt that the Highways Department were taking a short term view of the situation. Mr Sully added that the application would destroy the uniform and open character of the Square. There had been 17 letters of objection, but some letters that had been submitted had not been included in the report on the internet. The applicants had been aware of the covenants and guidelines of the Square when they moved in and should adhere to these.

 

(5)             Councillor Simson asked if residents used their garages for parking or storage. Mr Sully replied it was a mix of both.

 

(6)             Councillor Mitchell, local Ward Councillor, addressed the Committee and stated that whilst this may seem a minor alteration there was considerable strength of feeling against the application from within the Square. There were issues around the adherence of covenants, and historically residents had abided by these covenants. The overriding concern was that this would undermine the integrity of the Square and would set a precedent for more and more applications to come forth, changing the look and feel of the Square. She urged the Committee to refuse the application.

 

(7)             Councillor Simson noted several changes to the exteriors of the buildings that had already taken place and asked how this had affected the visual aspects of the Square. Councillor Mitchell replied that changes such as the introduction of uPVC windows had been agreed and sourced via the residents’ association, that had sought to find the nearest match to the original windows in order to maintain the Square’s integrity. This did not significantly change or undermine the design in any way.

 

(8)             Mrs Jackson, the applicant, addressed the Committee and did not feel the covenants were fully understood by Councillor Mitchell. She required the changes to accommodate her elderly father who was wheelchair bound and could not access the dwelling through the main entrance. The garage would remain visually very similar to the rest of the development and there would be no overlooking created by this application as it would be recessed to restrict the view. There would be no significant impact on the street scene. Mrs Jackson would continue to park her car on the highway so would not impact on car parking. She added that half of the people living in the Square had not expressed an opinion on the application.

 

(9)             Councillor Simson asked if the garage was currently used for storage and Mrs Jackson agreed.

 

(10)           Councillor Simson asked if the only alteration would be to the glass panels at the front and Mrs Jackson agreed.

 

(11)           Councillor Mrs Theobald asked what would happen to the interior layout of the dwelling and Mrs Jackson explained that the kitchen would be moved upstairs and the garage altered to provide wheelchair access into the rest of the ground floor of the house.

 

                  Debate and Decision Making Process

 

(12)           A vote was taken and on a vote of 8 for, 0 against and 3 abstentions planning permission was granted subject to the conditions and informatives in the report.

 

261.3        RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in paragraph 8 of the report and resolves to grant planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives listed in the report.

 

C.              Application BH2010/03462, Rear of 23 Falmer Road, Rottingdean – Erection of single storey 2no bedroom detached dwelling house with associated parking and landscaping.

 

(1)             Councillor Mrs Theobald took the chair for this item.

 

(2)             Ms Burnett introduced the application and presented plans, photos and elevational drawings. Letters of objection had been received and were reported. The application would be sited on greenfield land but this did not preclude development. However there would be no harm to the street scene or to neighbouring properties. An application in 2009 had been refused and several changes to the design had taken place including a significant reduction in floor space and reduction from a two storey design to a bungalow. The access route to the application would be along a bridleway and any mechanical vehicular access would need to be agreed by the Council as landowner. The path was large enough for all types of vehicles including emergency vehicles. The development would reach code level 4 for sustainable homes, and whilst code level 5 was desirable on greenfield sites, due to site restrictions it had been shown that it was not possible in the case. Smart glass would be used on the southern elevation to prevent light spill and a landscaping scheme was offered.

 

                  Questions/Matters on Which Clarification was Sought

 

(3)             Councillor Steedman asked what the site constraints were and what smart glass was. The Case Officer, Mr Puplett, replied that photovoltaics were limited due to the tree coverage on site and smart glass was a glass impregnated with material that would reduce light spillage.

 

(4)             Councillor Cobb noted that the site plans included the bridleway, but this was not in the ownership of the applicant and asked if this should be included. Ms Burnett replied that technically the applicant needed to include the site access as part of the plans. Whilst there was no vehicular access right there was pedestrian access.

 

(5)             Councillor Carden asked if the route could be restricted if the Council chose to do so and Ms Woodward confirmed the route could be restricted to allow access for pedestrians, cyclists and horse-riders only.

 

                  Public Speakers

 

(6)             Ms Taylor addressed the Committee and stated that she represented the children’s charity PARC, which had invested £150,000 in the nearby recreation grounds that were accessed by the bridleway. This bridleway was the only safe wheelchair and pushchair access to the grounds and should be kept safe for these users by being protected from development. The lane was very narrow and did not constitute a roadway, and there were 11 other houses that could follow suit with applications for access along the bridleway. This would create a very unsafe situation and would compromise the access. She felt that a safe wheelchair accessible route and a passing place should be provided as part of the application.

 

(7)             Councillor Hamilton asked if there was a car park in the recreation ground. Ms Taylor agreed and said this was often full of cars on Saturdays when football was played and traffic along the lane became busy with arguments breaking out.

 

(8)             Mr Macrorie, the applicant, addressed the Committee and stated that the proposals were for a modest bungalow. The area had seen significant change over the years and now looked over residential dwellings. This application would be a high standard development and had been designed in close consultation with officers so that it fit well in the surroundings. A sprinkler system would be included to ensure fire safety and the bridleway could accommodate single file traffic.

 

(9)             Councillor Davey asked if vehicles used the lane currently and Mr Macrorie confirmed that the tennis courts were used daily and the car park used for football at the weekends. Other traffic for collecting rubbish etc also occurred daily.

 

(10)           Councillor Simson asked how rubbish would be collected from the dwelling and Mr Macrorie confirmed that they would need to bring their rubbish onto Falmer Road for collection.

 

                  Debate and Decision Making Process

 

(11)           Councillor Cobb noted that previous applications had been turned down on the basis of unacceptable access and appeal decisions were normally taken into account. She did not feel this issue had been addressed in this case.

 

(12)           Councillor Kemble asked how the bridleway could be made safe for wheelchair users. Ms Woodward clarified that this was a highways matter and as the lane was not a public highway vehicles were not permitted to park on the bridleway. The Council could take action as the landowner if this was the case.

 

(13)           Councillor Davey asked if the Council had given permission for vehicular access the car park. Ms Woodward did not have details of any agreement but assumed that permission had been given as the existence of the car park was clear.

 

(14)           Councillor Simson asked why the planning appeal decisions were no longer relevant and Mr Vidler replied that changes to planning policies since the 1980s and 1990s were a material planning consideration.

 

(15)           Councillor Cobb pointed out that policies to restrict backland development should also be taken into account.

 

(16)           A vote was taken and on a vote of 6 for and 4 against planning permission was agreed subject to the conditions and informatives listed in the report.

 

261.4        RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in paragraph 8 of the report and resolves to grant planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives listed in the report.

 

D.              Application BH2010/03486, 8 West Way, Hove – Formation of additional storey at first floor level to create two 2no bedroom and two 1no bedroom residential units, ground floor extension at front and associated works.

 

(1)             The Area Planning Manager (West), Ms Hurley, introduced the application and presented plans, photos and elevational drawings. It was noted that the site plan was inaccurate and part of the land should not be included. An amended site plan had been submitted. Letters of objection had been received and late letters were included on the late list. A previous application had been refused in 2008 on the grounds of design and neighbouring amenity. The application had been dismissed at appeal, but only on the grounds that there had been no daylight/sunlight assessment conducted. The design of the application was considered acceptable. The Inspector did not feel there would be a loss of privacy created by this development. The recommendation for the application had been altered from minded to grant, to grant.

 

                  Questions/Matters on Which Clarification was Sought

 

(2)             Councillor Cobb asked why sustainable transport contributions were not sought. Ms Hurley replied that in line with the temporary measures to assist the development industry, the Council currently required 5 units to be developed before contributions for transport were sought.

 

(3)             Councillor Simson asked what impact the amenity space would have on surrounding neighbours. Ms Hurley replied this was addressed as part of the appeal and the Inspector did not feel there would be an impact.

 

(4)             Councillor Kemble asked if the Council was protected from liability should further contamination of the land be discovered. Ms Hurley replied that this was addressed as part of recommended condition 4 in the report.

 

(5)             Councillor Alford noted that the site was near a busy junction and asked what parking was available. Ms Hurley replied that there was no residents parking and any parking would be on street.

 

(6)             Councillor Simson asked what the relationship was with the medical centre and Ms Hurley replied that they did not adjoin but they were very close.

 

                  Public Speakers

 

(7)             Mr Tyler addressed the Committee and stated that he had been the only resident informed of the Committee meeting date even though many residents had strongly objected to the proposals. Mr Tyler had bought 6 West Way as it had been a relatively private dwelling with no overlooking. These proposals would severely reduce his light levels and the lack of car parking in the area would be detrimentally impacted by this car free development. Access to local amenities would also be reduced because of this. The current nursery located in the building had confirmed it would have to close down. This would affect the child care arrangements of 72 families. There would be a huge increase in noise and additional traffic and the development would destroy Mr Tyler’s home. He requested that the Committee undertake a site visit.

 

(8)             Councillor Alford asked if Mr Tyler had been the only person to be informed of the meeting and Mr Tyler agreed, stating that many had not been aware of this meeting.

 

(9)             The Chairman asked for more details on the closure of the nursery and Mr Tyler replied that due to the building works the nursery would have to close and may not be able to reopen.

 

(10)           Mr Vidler stated that it was not normal practice for the authority to write to all of the people who had commented on an application advising them of the Committee date. If there was no request to speak as part of the objection then notification of the meeting would not be sent out. Neighbours who adjoined the property were consulted in the normal way. Guidance on speaking and the application process was sent out to objectors when they were first written to as part of the initial consultation process.

 

(11)           Councillor McCaffery asked why the nursery would need to close permanently. Mr Tyler replied that the building works could take some time and the nursery would lose customers and may not be able to reopen once the works were finished.

 

(12)           Councillor Janio, local ward Councillor, addressed the Committee and stated that there were serious parking issues in the area already. The development was unsuitable for this area. The original plans that were submitted were incorrect and decisions had been based on these incorrect plans, including the appeal decision. The amended plans for this application remained incorrect. Councillor Janio accepted that the current building was ugly but the plans for development were unreasonable given the problems in the area. It was very busy and this development would exacerbate traffic problems. He asked that the Committee reject this application and attend a site visit.

 

(13)           Ms Hurley recognised that the plan was incorrect and highlighted where the boundary should lie. This had been referred to in the first part of the presentation. The alteration would not impact on the Inspector’s decision however and so was not a part of the consideration of the application.

 

(14)           Ms Wheeler, agent to the applicant, addressed the Committee and stated that there was no intention to close the nursery and they had recently signed a new lease. There were no Highways objections to this application and it was a car free development so would not impact on traffic. The original application had been refused only on the grounds of a missing daylight/sunlight assessment. This had now been provided from an independent assessor and showed that there would be acceptable light levels at neighbouring properties.

 

(15)           Councillor Cobb asked if the developer could guarantee that future residents of this development would not own cars. Ms Wheeler could not give assurances for this, but added that some on-street parking was available.

 

(16)           Councillor Mrs Theobald asked if the nursery would close and Ms Wheeler replied that a site management plan had been agreed to ensure that the nursery would remain open. The nursery had been in discussions with the applicant to secure this.

 

(17)           Councillor Kemble proposed a site visit and Councillor Carden seconded this proposal.

 

(18)           A vote was taken and on a vote of 5 for, 3 against and 3 abstentions the application was deferred for a site visit.

 

E.              Application BH2010/03983, 14 Shirley Road, Hove – Extension at first floor level, alterations to the roof, new entrance porch and infill extension at ground floor.

 

(1)             This application was deferred for a site visit.

 

F.               Application BH2010/03423, 5 Bedford Place, Brighton – Erection of railings around rear second floor roof terrace and reduction in size of roof terrace. Erection of replacement railings to top floor roof terrace.

 

(1)             This application was deferred prior to Committee.