Agenda item - Plans List Applications, 18 June 2008

(i) TREES

27.1

There were none.

(ii) SUBSTANTIAL OR CONTROVERSIAL APPLICATIONS OR APPLICATIONS DEPARTING FROM COUNCIL POLICY

27.2

Application BH2008/00980, Falmer School, Lewes Road, Brighton –Outline application for partial demolition  of  existing  school (locally  known  as  North  Block) and construction  of  new  academy complex (Class D1) with associated  car parking  and  landscaping.

27.3

It was noted that this application had formed the subject of a site visit prior to the meeting.

27.4

The Planning  Officer  gave  a  detailed  presentation including  reference  to  aerial  views,  floor plans,  photomontages and plans explaining  the  constituent  elements  of  the  scheme . The  proposals  had  been  designed to  respect  the  neighbouring Area  of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), the boundaries of  the  proposed  national  park and strategic views from Stanmer Park  towards  the  downs.  The proposals included  areas  of  hard and soft  landscaping  and  incorporated  additional cycle  parking  spaces.  It  was  noted  that  proposed  scrub  clearance works associated with  the  on -  site  development  would  not  take  place during  the  bird  nesting  season without  the  prior  approval  of  the local  authority. Details and samples  of  materials were not available at  this  outline  stage  but  would  be  submitted as  reserved  matters.        

27.5

In  answer  to  questions,  it  was  explained  that there  were  currently 690  pupils  at  the  school,  but on completion  of  the  scheme  and  inception  of  the  academy  there would be capacity  for  1150.   

27.6

Councillor  Steedman sought  clarification regarding access  for  those walking  or  cycling  to the  site,  querying  why  it  had  not  been  possible  to  significantly  improve  the  existing  arrangements.  The  Traffic Engineer  explained  the  rationale  for   the  proposed  Travel  Plan  and  access  arrangements. Councillors K Norman  and  Mrs Theobald enquired  whether  the proposed  level  of  cycle  parking  spaces  would  be  adequate  and regarding  the  modes of  travel and numbers  associated   therewith  by  which  pupils travelled to school each day.  It  was  explained  that precise  figures were  not  available  but  that the number  of  cycle  parking  spaces  proposed  was  based  on  anticipated  levels  of  use.  

27.9

Councillor  Hamilton  fully  supported  the  scheme  stating  that based  on his  experience  of use  of  cycle  parking at BHASVIC (which  was  not  great)  he was  satisfied  that the  school would  have  looked  into  this  matter  and set  provision  at  a level matching  identified  need.  

27.30

Mr  Pennington,  Brighton &  Hove Federation of Disabled People stated  that dropped  kerbs  did  not appear to  have  been provided  along  Lucraft  Road ,  he  considered  this  to  be  an  omission. Mr  Small  CAG  referred  to   the apparently  adverse  comments  received  from  the South  East  Regional  Design Panel and asked  whether significant amendments  had  been made .  The  Planning  Officer  explained  that  minor  amendments  had  been  made  to  the  scheme  and that  the  Panel  were  one  of  a number  of  consultees. 

27.31

Councillor  McCaffery  requested  to  see  photographs  indicating  how  the  site  would  appear when viewed  from  Falmer  Station  and the railway  line looking  towards  the  site. Councillor  Rufus  sought  clarification  regarding  the  requirements  of  condition  19  which  related  to  ecological  matters.

27.32

Councillor Carden sought information regarding provision of a sprinkler system.  The  Planning  officer  explained  however that these  details would  be  submitted  at the  final  application  stage  and  would  need to  comply  with  Building Regulations.

27.33

In answer to questions it was  explained  that measures  to  mitigate  against   noise  and in  order  to  minimise  disruption  during  building  works this would  take  place  in  two  phases. With  pupils  being  decanted into  the  retained  building  on  completion  of  the first phase  of  the  works .     

27.34

A vote was taken and on a vote of 9 to 1 with 2 abstentions planning permission was granted as minded to grant on the grounds set out below.

27.35

RESOLVED - That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in Paragraph 10 of  the  report  and resolves that it  is minded to grant planning  permission subject  to  the  Conditions, Informatives and details  to  be  included  in  the  Section 106 obligation as referred  to in  the report. And  subject  to  the  two  additional  informatives  set  out  below :

“14. In  the  interests of  improving  access  to the development.,  particularly for  disabled  persons, the  applicant  is requested to consider the  provision of  dropped  kerbs  in  Lucraft  Road;

15.  In  the  interests  of  fire safety, the  applicant is  requested to  consider  the  provision  of sprinklers  within the  development .”

27.36

[Note: Councillor Steedman voted that the application be refused.  Councillors Kennedy and Rufus abstained].

27.37

Application BH2008/00379, Withdean Stadium, Tongdean Lane, Brighton – Proposed continuation of use of the stadium until 30 June 2011 and retention of existing temporary facilities. Variations of conditions 2, 3 and 4 pursuant to previous application no. BH2005/00464/FP.  Construction of additional temporary staff building and extension to study support building. 

27.38

It was noted that this application had formed the subject of a site visit prior to the meeting.

27.39

The  Planning  Officer  gave  a detailed presentation explaining  that the  current  application sought to  extend the  existing  temporary permission  for  a  further  five  year period pending  the  move  by  Brighton& Hove Football  Club to a  purpose built  stadium  at Falmer. Variations were sought to Conditions 2, 3 and 5.  8  letters  of  objections had  been  received  from  neighbouring  residents  and 94 letters  of  support  from  citywide  locations and beyond.

27.40

Councillor  Wells  enquired  why  the  application  had  been put  forward  as  “major” and  it  was  explained  that this  was  by  virtue  of  the site  area  and floor space  involved. 

27.41

Councillor Mrs Theobald sought confirmation of the conditions attached to the previous permission. Councillor  McCaffery stated  that it  was important  that the  arrangements   in  place  relative  to  parking  and other  matters  relative  to   stewardship  of  the  site  were  properly   monitored   as  whilst not  averse  to   granting  of  temporary  permission  she  considered  that local  residents did experience  some  inconvenience on  match  days .  It was confirmed that regular monitoring did take place. Both  Councillors  were   informed  in  answer  to  questions  that monitoring included the  volume  of  noise  emanating  from  loud  speakers /  the tannoy system  at the  ground.  

27.42

Whilst she  supported  the  proposal  Councillor Mrs  Theobald  stated  that she  thought that the football club  should  liaise  more  closely  with  the  athletics  club  and Councillor  Carden  concurred  in  that view.  

27.43

Councillor  Kennedy considered  that local  residents  had been very  patient  over  the  period  of  time stating  that she  hoped  that this  would  be  the  last temporary  permission  granted  pending  the  move  to  Falmer.  This view was echoed by other Members of   the Committee.

27.44

Councillor  Smart  considered  that the  proposals were acceptable and  would not  be  visible  from  outside  the  site.

27.45

A vote was taken and the 11 Members present when the vote was taken voted that  they  were minded to grant temporary permission in the terms set out below.

27.46

RESOLVED -  That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in Paragraph 10 of the report and resolves that it is minded to grant  temporary planning permission subject  to any  variations required  to  the  existing Section  106 Agreement and to  the Conditions  and  Informatives  set  out  in  the  report and  to  an additional  informative to be added as  Informative  3  :

The  applicant  is reminded that this  permission only allows the  amendments  detailed above   as  a variation to conditions  2,3,4 of  planning  approval  BH 2005/00464/FP (granted 20  July  2005). The  remaining  conditions  attached  to BH  2005/00464/FP  are  extant   and are  not  removed  or  superceded   by this  permission.

[Note :  Having declared  a  personal  and  prejudicial interest in  respect  of the  above  application Councillor  K Norman  left the  meeting during  consideration of  the  above  application  and took no part in the  discussion  or  voting thereon].

27.47

Application BH2008/00294, Sussex  Education  Centre,  Nevill Avenue, Hove – Proposed three-  storey extension to  existing  education centre to  create a  1688sqm office  building  for  the  NHS Trust.

27.48

It was noted that this application had been withdrawn at the request of the applicant.

27.49

RESOLVED - That the position be noted.

27.50

Application BH2008/00877,  Vicarage and Wagner Hall, Regency  Road,  West  Street,  Brighton – Change of  use  of  Wagner Hall and  Vicarage  to  offices for  Social Enterprise Incubator Centre (SEIC).  Wagner Hall to be used for administration of SEIC and Brighton & Hove Social Enterprise Strategy. Consent required for five year temporary period.

27.51

It  was  noted  that this application  had  formed  the  subject  of  a  site  visit  prior to  the  meeting.

27.52

The  Planning  Officer  gave  a detailed  presentation  indicating the configuration  of  buildings on  the  site  and  their established  and  proposed  uses by  reference  to  plans  and photographs.  He explained that revised plans and details had been received that day satisfying  the  concerns  raised  and the third  reason recommended for refusal was  therefore  withdrawn . Notwithstanding  that the  scheme  was  supported  by  the  Economic  Development  Team concerns remained  however relative to  the loss  of  a  community  facility and  accommodation  within  the  Vicarage,  albeit not  affordable  housing  . Whilst  it  was accepted  that these  facilities   were  no  longer  required  by  the  church  and  had  not  been  for  some  years  it was contrary to policy which  seek to  retain  these  uses .  it  was  not  considered  that a  sufficiently  compelling  case  had  been  made  for  their  loss  as it was possible that  other  community  uses  could  be  found.  Whilst   the  applicants  had  indicated  that living  accommodation  within the  Vicarage   was  not  self-  contained  it was  considered  that it  could easily be  made  so .

27.53

Mr Bareham -spoke on behalf of the applicant in support of their application. He  explained that  the application  site  had  not  been in  regular community  use for  a number  of  years.  The  accommodation  would  provide   affordable centrally  located  start up  accommodation   of  the  type  required  for  a  SEIC. A  number  of  recent  planning  permissions granted  had  included  provision  for   community  use  and it  could be  argued  that  the  proposed  use  would  replace  office  space  which  had  been lost . A case could be made the proposed use was a community based one.  Temporary permission  was requested  for  5years , dependent  on  the  level  of  take  up  and ability  of  users  to  attract  on- going  grant  funding a further  application  would  be  made or  the  buildings  would  revert to  their  previous  use .

27.54

In  answer  to  questions it  was  explained  that these  premises  had  not  been in  regular use  for  over  twenty  years. Latterly the buildings had been used by the Police during   political party conferences.  Councillor  Barnett  enquired  whether  the  accommodation was  used  by  the  Police  at  other  times  such  as  at  weekends  or  bank  holidays. It was understood that this was the case.

27.55

Councillor  Kennedy  stated  that she  considered  that the  proposed  use  would  return  the  building  to  regular  use whilst providing  a  much  needed  business start up facility  at  a city  centre  location. She  did  not  consider  the  loss  of  dwelling  accommodation  to  be  significant,  in  this  instance in  that it  was  of  poor  quality  and  would  require  modernisation.  If  permission  was  granted  for  a  temporary period the  building  would  revert  to  its  previously designated  use  in  any  event .

27.56

Councillor Rufus enquired regarding marketing of the site.  The  applicants agent explained that the  buildings  had  been  on their agents  books  for some  time  and  no  interest  had  been  shown  in  respect  of  other  uses. Councillor  Steedman  enquired regarding  whether  or  not  full planning  permission  would  be  sought  in  the  future  and it was  reiterated  that this  would  be  dependant  on  the level of  take  up and  could  be  judged  against  planning  policies  in  place  at that time. It  was  confirmed  that if  the  use  for  which  permission  was  sought  was  not  renewed the buildings would  revert  to  their former  use .

27.57

Councillor Mrs Theobald considered that the proposal represented an excellent use of the buildings. As the  fabric  of  the  listed  building  was to  be  preserved  and  various  features retained  the  proposals  should  in  her  view  be  supported. Councillor Wells concurred in that view.

27.58

 Councillor Hamilton stated  that the  buildings  did  not  appear to  have  been in  regular use  since  they  hosted  the  Brighton By Pass  Inquiry which  had  taken place  over  20 years previously. The number of buildings in use by the church authorities had dwindled considerably.  However,  they  usually  sought   to  obtain  tenants /  secure  lettings  which  satisfied  an  identified local need  at an  affordable  rental  income,  in instances  such  as  this  it  could  help  to  facilitate use  by small  businesses. Councillors Carden and McCaffery agreed that this use should be supported.

27.59

Mr  Pennington,  Brighton &  Hove  Federation  of  Disabled  People  considered  that access  to the  front  of  the  building  should  be improved.  It   was explained that internally within the building there were ramps   and a platform lift.  Councillor Hyde, the Chairman agreed   that it would be appropriate for a condition to that effect to be added.

27.60

Councillor Smart stated that he did not support the proposed use.  The  building  had  originally  been in  use  as a  theatre  and he considered that use  should  be  retained .  A  city  centre  venue  which  could  be used  as a  rehearsal  space   for  musicians and others  was needed.

27.61

In  answer  to  questions  regarding use  of  the  existing  gardens it  was  explained  that   this  was  to  be  retained as existing ,  although  in the  event  that on-  site  cycle  parking  were  to  be  provided it  was  considered  that part  of  the  garden  area  could  be  given  over  to  that purpose.  Members  were  in  agreement  that  if  it  was  intended for  cycle  parking  to  be  provided  that details  should  be  provided  to  the  Council  in  advance  of  commencement  of  that use .

27.62

A vote  was  taken  and on  a  vote of 11 to  1 Members  voted  that planning  be  granted on the  grounds set out  below.

27.63

RESOLVED -  That having considered  the  above  application the  Committee resolves  that planning  permission be  granted  on  the  grounds  that following  the  resolution  of  issues  relating  to  the  use  of  the  Listed  Vicarage building,  the  proposals would  bring  these empty  buildings  back  into use. The  proposed  use  would  be  beneficial to  employment  opportunities  and economy  of  the City . Planning  Permission is  granted  subject  to the  following  conditions :

1.  The use  hereby  permitted shall be  discontinued  and the  land restored to  its former condition on  or  before  30 June 2013 in  accordance  with  a  scheme  of  work  submitted  to  and  approved in  writing by  the  Local Planning  Authority.

Reason :  The use hereby approved  is not considered  suitable as  a  permanent  form  of  development to  safeguard community  facilities,  business floorspace  and  housing accommodation  within  the  city  and  to  comply with  policies  HO20,  EM4 and  HO8 of  the  Brighton  &  Hove  Local  Plan;

2.   Wagner  Hall   shall  be  used  as  offices  for a Social  Enterprise Incubator Centre and  the  Vicarage   shall  be  used  for  administration  offices  for the Social Enterprise  Incubation Centre and  Brighton &  Hove   Social Enterprise  Strategy  and for  no  other purpose (including  any  other  purpose  in Class B1 of  the  schedule  to  the  Town  and  Country  Planning (Use Classes) Order  1987 (or  in  any  provision  equivalent  to  that class in  any  statutory instrument  revoking  and re-enacting  that Order with or  without  modification).

Reason : The use hereby approved is not considered suitable  as  a  permanent form  of  development to  safeguard  community  facilities, business floorspace and  housing  accommodation within  the  City  and  to   comply with  policies  HO20,  EM4, and  HO8 of  the  Brighton  &  Hove  Local Plan;

3.  06.02A. cycle parking details  to  be  submitted;

4. The  use  hereby  approved  shall not  be  commenced  until  all necessary  alterations  to provide  access  for  disabled  persons  into  Wagner  Hall  from  Regency  Road have  been  implemented in  accordance with  details  that have  been  submitted  to  and  approved  in  writing  by  the   Local  Planning Authority.

Reason : To ensure  satisfactory access  into  the  building  for  people  with  disabilities.

Informative

 The  applicant is  advised  that any  works  which  affect  the  character or  appearance  of  the  Grade II*  listed  Vicarage   would  require  listed  building  consent .  Revised drawing numbers to be incorporated into the informative. 

[Note 1  : Councillor Kennedy  proposed  that  planning permission  be  granted  on  the  grounds  set out  above. This was seconded  by  Councillor Rufus]

[ Note 2 : A further  vote was taken and Councillors Hyde (the Chairman), Barnett,  Carden, Hamilton,  Kennedy, McCaffery, K  Norman, Rufus,  Steedman, Mrs Theobald  and Wells  voted  that  planning  permission be  granted.  Councillor Smart voted that planning permission be refused.  therefore  on  a  vote  of 11 to  1 planning  permission  was  granted].

27.64

Application BH2008/00765, 55 and 59 – 61 New Church Road, Hove – installation of additional velux roof lights to flats 20 and 21.  Retrospective amendment to BH2005/02267/FP.

27.65

The Planning Officer  gave  a  presentation regarding  the  proposals  and  explained  that as these  represented  a series  of  further  applications in  respect of  the  site. Councillor  Kennedy queried  the  point at  which an application was deemed to  have be so  altered from  that for which permission had  originally  been granted  that a  new  application  was  required  to be  submitted. The  Planning  Officer  responded  that  a  balanced  judgement  needed to be  made  in  respect  of  individual  applications. In this instance   the  amendments  proposed were  not  regarded  as  being  such  that a  new application  was  required.    

27.66

A vote was taken and Members voted unanimously that planning permission be granted.

27.67

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 Informatives set out  in  the  report.

27.68

Application BH2008/01117, Flat 25, 55 & 59 - 61 New Church Road, Hove – Formation of roof terrace at 4^th floor, west elevation.  (Amendment to approval BH2005/002267).

27.69

A vote  was taken  and  Members  voted  unanimously  that planning  permission be  granted  in  the  terms set out below.

27.70

RESOLVED-  That the  Committee has taken into  consideration and  agrees with  the  reasons for  the  recommendations set out  In  Paragraph 8  of  the  report and resolves  to  grant  planning permission  subject  to  the  Informatives  and  Conditions set  out  in  the  report.

27.71

Application BH2008/01141, Flat 39, 55 & 59 – 61 New Church Road, Hove – Installation of  2  additional velux roof lights (amendment to approval BH2005/002267)

27.72

A vote was taken and Members voted unanimously that planning permission be granted in the terms set out below.

27.73

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 set out in the report.

27.74

Application BH2008/01144, Flat 40, 55 & 59 - 61 New Church Road , Hove – Installation of  1 additional velux roof light(amendment to approval BH2005 /002267)

27.75

A vote was taken and on a vote of 10 with 1 abstention planning permission was granted in the terms set out below.

27.76

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 set out in the report.

(iii) DECISIONS ON MINOR APPLICATIONS WHICH VARY FROM THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT AS SET OUT IN THE PLANS LIST (MINOR APPLICATIONS) DATED 18JUNE 2008

27.77

Application BH2008/00781, 4 Barn Rise, Brighton - Remodelling of house including ground floor, first floor, and roof extension, to front, side and rear.  Front, side and rear roof lights (Resubmission).  

27.78

It  was  noted  that this application had  formed  the  subject  of  site  visit  prior  to  the  meeting.

27.79

The  Planning  Officer referred to  revised  plans received  from  the  applicant which  had  sought  to  address some of  the  concerns raised which included  a  pitched  roof  structure,  however  these were not    accepted as an  amendment to  the  application as  they  would result  in  a  larger  development  than  that currently proposed  and  would  need  to  form  the  subject  of a further  application. A Waste Management  Statement  had  also  been  provided  but  was  considered  to  be  inadequate.         

27.80

Mr Turner spoke on behalf of neighbouring objectors stating  that the  submitted  application  differed  so  little  from  the  earlier one  that it failed  to  address the  concerns  of  the  two  immediately neighbouring  properties   regarding  the  size and  bulk  of  the  proposed  extensions which  would  be  overbearing  and oppressive to  their  properties  and would result  in  significant  loss  of  amenity  and  overshadowing  and would  represent  an  unneighbourly  form  of  development . Mrs Johnston the applicant spoke in support of her application. She displayed photographs of  properties  to  which  similar works  had  been  carried  out  in  the  immediate  area. The proposals  set  out in her  application  were similar and were  not  in  her  view  out  of keeping  with  the prevailing  street  scene  and would  effect  considerable  improvements to existing  rear  of  the  property.    

27.81

Councillor  K  Norman stated that  he was well  familiar with  the  area  in which the  application  site  was  located  and  concurred  with  the  applicants  view  that  the  proposals were not  dissimilar to  a  number of  others  within  the  area.  He did not  consider that  there  would be loss  of  sunlight  or  overshadowing  of  the  neighbouring dwellings,  number  2  in particular,  given that all  of  these  properties  were  in  their  own  shadow  for  much of  the  day. The  manner  in  which  the  property was configured  in  relation  to  its neighbours would  not  in  his  view  result in any  additional  loss of  amenity . Councillors  Barnett,  Smart  and  Mrs Theobald concurred  in  that view     

27.82

Councillor  Rufus stated that  although  he acknowledged  that the  proposals would  effect  considerable improvements to  the  rear of  the  property he did  not  agree that they  would  not  have a  detrimental  impact  on  the  neighbouring  properties.  Whilst in  shadow  when  visited  the  previous  afternoon  during  the  site  visit, as the  sun  rose in  the  east and set in  the  west he was  of  the  view  that  there  would  be significant loss of light earlier in  the  day  than was presently  the  case .  He  considered  that overall  the  scheme  would result  in  an unacceptable form  of  development .  

27.83

A  vote was  taken  and  on  a  vote  of 5  for grant  of planning permission,  1  vote  that planning permission be  refused and  6  abstentions planning  permission  was  granted in  the  terms  set  out  below.

27.84

RESOLVED  :  That Planning Committee  having considered  the  above  application considers  that  planning permission should  be granted on  the  grounds  that the proposed extensions are  well  designed., improve  the  appearance of  the  property and fit  in  well with  its surroundings and are  not  contrary to  Policy  QD14 of  the  Brighton &  Hove Local Plan.  There  would  be  no  material loss of amenity  to  the  occupiers of  adjoining properties  through loss of light and  overshadowing  and the  proposals would  not  be  contrary  to  Policy QD27  of  the  Brighton  &  Local  Plan and  subject  to  the  following  conditions  and  Informatives :

1.01.01AA Full  Planning;

2.03.01 Submission of samples  of  materials  prior  to  commencement  of  the  works;

3. 02.01A Removal  of  permitted development  rights  (extensions) ;

4.  02.02A Removal of  permitted development  rights (windows) ;

5. 02.07A Flat roofed  extensions ;

6. 05.03 Submission of  a Waste  Minimisation  Statement  prior  to  commencement  of  the  works  .

Informative  :

IN.08  

[ Note 1 : Councillor K Norman  proposed  that  planning permission  be  granted in  the  terms  set  out  above  this  was seconded  by Councillor Wells ].

[Note 2:  A recorded vote was then taken.  Councillors Barnett, K Norman, Smart,   Mrs Theobald and Wells voted that planning permission be granted. Councillor Rufus voted that planning permission be refused. Councillors Hyde (the Chairman), Carden, Hamilton, Kennedy, McCaffery, and Steedman abstained.  Therefore  on  a  vote  of  5  to  I  with  6  abstentions  planning  permission  was  granted ]. 

27.85

Application BH2008/00953, 115 St James’ Street, Brighton - 1 externally illuminated projecting sign. 1 externally illuminated fascia lettering sign and 1 externally illuminated logo sign and associated lighting (retrospective).

27.86

In presenting the  application the  Planning Officer referred  to  the application  for  change  of  use which  had    recently been refused under  delegated  authority.  It  was  understood  that the  applicant “Starbucks”  was  intending  to  appeal  against that  decision although  confirmation  from  the Planning  Inspectorate  that an  appeal  had  been  lodged   had yet  to  be  received.  Notwithstanding  that  the  applicant  had opened  their  premises notwithstanding refusal  of  planning  permission. This was not of itself illegal and they proceeded at their own risk. The  situation  in  respect  of  the use  was   that it  was being  monitored  and investigated  and  could form the subject of  separate enforcement  action  if  that was deemed  to  be  appropriate.  The  application before  Members   that day  was  completely  separate  and  needed  to  be considered  on  its  own  merits  and related purely  to the application for advertisement  consent.  It was noted that the signage which formed the subject of the application had been installed.  

27.87

Councillor  Duncan spoke  in his capacity  as  a  Local  Ward Councillor  setting  out  his  objections  to  the proposals. Notwithstanding  that this application   related  to  signage  he  did  not  agree  that it  was  appropriate  to  a  Conservation Area  and considered  that it  contravened the  relevant Council  policies  and was at  variance with  the unique and quirky  character  of  the  St James’ Street  shopping  frontage .   

27.88

Councillor  Kennedy  stated  that  she  did  not  consider  it  appropriate  for  advertising  consent  to  be granted in view of the  controversy  concerning  use of  the  site .  There had been a considerable volume  of  local objections  and notwithstanding  refusal by  the  Council,  the  applicant  had opened  their  premises  and commenced  trading .  It was inappropriate and inconsistent to refuse one application and to grant another. She did not agree that the signage was appropriate to its location.  Councillor  Rufus concurred  with Councillor  Kennedy

27.89

The  Planning Officer  displayed  the  relevant  Local  Plan policy for  the benefit  of  Members  and answered queries regarding  its  interpretation.  The Deputy Development Control Manager advised that the considerations for determining an application for advertisement  consent were  amenity   and public  safety.    

27.90

The  Solicitor  to  the  Committee  reiterated  the  points  made  by  the  Planning  Officer  in  introducing  the  application,  confirming  that each  application  had  to  be  considered on  its individual merits. The  applicant  had separate  rights of  appeal in  respect  of  both  applications should  they  be  refused.  Any grounds for refusal were required to be sustainable and members should be  wary  of a  possible  costs  application should an  appeal be  lodged   and should  each  reason for  refusal  not  be  substantiated.        

27.91

Councillor  McCaffery  enquired  whether  similar illuminated  signage  had  been  permitted  in  Conservation  Areas  elsewhere across  the  City  and  the  Planning Officer confirmed that it had. Councillor Mrs  Theobald stated  that she considered  this  to be  an exceptional situation in that she  could  not  recall  any  previous occasion  when  a stand- alone advertisement  application had  followed  an earlier  planning  refusal  in  respect  of  the same  site .  

27.92

Councillor  Hamilton  stated  that  having  heard  all  that had  been  said he did  not  consider that there   were grounds  for  refusing  this application.

27.93

A  vote  was taken  and on  vote 7 to 3 with 2  abstentions  Members  voted  that advertisement  consent be refused  on  the  grounds set  out  below.

27.94

RESOLVED -  That  the  Planning  Committee  having  considered  the  above  application considers the advertisement consent should be  refused  on  the  grounds  that the signage had  an  adverse  affect  on  the  historic character and appearance of the East Cliff Conservation  area  and was  also  contrary to  Policy  HE9a of  the  Brighton & Hove  Local  Plan.

[Note 1: Councillor Kennedy proposed that permission be refused on the grounds set out above. Councillor McCaffery seconded the proposal].

[ Note  2 :  A further  vote  was taken  and Councillors Barnett,  Kennedy, McCaffery,  K Norman, Rufus, Steedman and Mrs Theobald voted that advertisement  consent  be refused.  Councillors Carden, Hamilton and Wells voted that it be granted. Councillors Hyde (the Chairman) and Smart abstained.  therefore on  a  vote  of  7  to 3  with  2  abstentions  advertisement  consent  was refused ].           

(iv) OTHER APPLICATIONS

27.95

Application BH2008/00559,Ground Floor,  14  Matlock  Road,  Brighton – Change  of  use from  retail (Class A1)to  café (A3) (retrospective).  Proposed extract duct to side elevation.

27.96

The  Planning  Officer  explained  that  the  request for permission  to  operate a  take  way  service  from the  premises  had  been withdrawn .

27.97

A  vote  was  taken  and  Members  voted  unanimously  that planning  permission  be  granted .

27.98

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  set  out  in  the  report.

27.99

Application BH2007/04444, Land to Rear 67 - 81, Princes Road, Brighton – Erection of 8 new two and three storey houses at the rear and a single storey lift housed onto Princes Road. Provision of private   and communal gardens, refuse storage, cycle storage and one car parking.  

27.100

Members  agreed  that it  would  be  beneficial to  hold  a  site  visit  prior  to  determining   the  application . 

27.101

RESOLVED - That consideration of the above application be deferred pending a site visit.  

27.102

Application BH2008/00232, Windlesham School, Dyke Road, Brighton - Demolition of existing gymnasium and prefabricated classrooms. Proposed new gymnasium with changing facilities and classrooms and internal alterations to existing building.

27.103

 It  was   noted  that this application had  formed  the  subject  of  a  site  visit  prior to  the  meeting .

27.104

The Planning Officer gave a  detailed  presentation  indicating  the  location  of  the  proposed  replacement buildings  within  the  site  and their  location  particularly  that of  the gymnasium in  relation  to  the  site  boundary  with  the  properties  located  in  Port  Hall  Street.  Photomontages indicating the appearance of the gymnasium were also shown. It was recommended  that proposed Condition 3 be  removed  and that a further  condition  be  added  in  order  to  seek  to  protect  two  trees (indicated  by  reference  to  plans) during  the  construction  works.     

27.105

Mrs Barry spoke on   behalf of neighbouring objectors stating  that whilst   neighbours  had  no  objection  to  the  principle  of  the  school  effecting  improvements  to  their  buildings the  proposals represented  an approximately  22% increase  in area.  The  proposed  height  and  appearance  of  the  gymnasium  were  considered  unacceptable  in  that it  would be  considerably  higher  than the existing  building. It  would be  overly  dominant  in  that  it  would  tower over  the  houses  and  gardens in  Port Hall Street  which  were set  down  at  a lower  level.  The  proposed materials were also  completely  at  variance with  the  neighbouring Victorian  and  Edwardian  terraced  houses.  Mr Gowlett spoke on behalf of  the  applicant  in  support  of  their  application stating  that great  care had  been  taken  in seeking to  effect improvements which  respected  the amenity  of  neighbouring  residents  The proposed  improvements  would seek  to  remove two portababins and enlargements to  the  existing  kitchen  would  enable hot meals to  be  cooked  and  provided  on  the  premises. The gymnasium would  not  be  intrusive  in  that it  would  be  screened by boundary trees which would be  retained . Councillor Allen spoke in his capacity as a Local Ward Councillor  setting out  his  objections to the  scheme and reiterating  the  objections  of  neighbouring  residents stating  that he  considered  that the  impact  of  the  gymnasium  would  be  far  greater  than  asserted  by the Planning Officer. In  view  of  its increased  height  in  relation  to  the  houses  in  Port Hall Street it  would  be  completely  oppressive and would  overshadow  their  gardens  and the rear of  their properties .  On  the site visit  the  previous day  the  differences  in  height  between  the application  site  and its  neighbours  had  been apparent.  The materials proposed, particularly the metal clad roof were also completely at variance with its surroundings.  In  winter  much  of   the  purported  benefit  of  the  screening  could be  lost.             . 

27.106

Councillor  McCaffery  sought  confirmation  regarding  whether  it was proposed that  pupil  numbers  would  increase  as  a  result  of   the proposed  scheme. If  an  increase  in  on – street  parking  by  parents taking  their  children  to  school  would  result  she  also  considered that that would  be  unacceptable.   The  Planning Officer  stated that as the  proposals represented  a like  for  like  replacement no indication had  been  given that the school  intended  to  increase  its  numbers .  This was  also  borne  out  by  the  design  and access statement  which  had  been submitted with  the  application. Whilst  supporting removal  of  the portacabins  and the  ability  of  the  school  to prepare  and cook food  on  site  she could  not support  the  proposed  gymnasium which in  her view  would present  a  completely  un-neighbourly  form  of development. It would result in loss of light and amenity to   the neighbouring properties. 

27.107

Councillor  Mrs Theobald enquired regarding  soundproofing  to  the  gymnasium  and regarding replacement  of  a tree  located  in  the  middle  of  the  existing  site.  It  was explained  that any soundproofing  requirements did not  form  part  of the  planning  consent  but  would  be met  under Building Regulations.  The tree  referred  to  would be  lost  but   would  be  replaced elsewhere on  the  site.  Whilst  supporting  the  proposals, in particular removal of  the  portacabins  and improved  kitchens she considered  it  vital  that conditions were  included  to  ensure  protection of screening  between   the  boundary  of  the  application  site  and its  neighbours .           

27.108

A  vote  was taken and  on  a  vote  of 9  to  1 with  2  abstentions  planning  permission  was  granted  on  the  grounds  set  out  below.

27.109

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  set out  in  the  report .

[ Note : Councillor  McCaffery voted  that the  application be  refused ,  Councillors Kennedy  and  Rufus  abstained].

27.110

Application BH2007/04061, 4 Dean Court Road, Rottingdean – Demolition of existing dwelling. Construction of 3 bedroom dwelling house.

27.111

The Planning Officer   gave  a detailed  presentation  and referred  in  particular to the previous decision  of  the  Planning  Inspector in  allowing change of  use  of  the existing studio  building  on  site.  He  had  recognised  that  the  site  formed  part of  an open  and undeveloped  area  and  had  recognised  that this  open character was important  to  the  conservation  area. 

27.112

The  Planning  Officer  explained that the  Committee  were  being recommended  to  agree   that they  would have refused  planning  permission  for  the  reasons  set  out in  the  report  had an appeal  against  non – determination not  been  lodged  by  the  applicant.

27.113

Mr Adams spoke on behalf of neighbouring objectors.  Local objectors  considered that the  proposed  development  was completely out  of  keeping with  the  area  and was  at  variance  with the style  of its  neighbours. Referring in particular to the context of the nearby Tudor Close and St. Margaret’s Church. Its appearance  would  be  particularly  detrimental  in  that it would  it  would  be  clearly  visible   above  the  flint  walls  which  surrounded the site. It  would  also  impact detrimentally on  the  uninterrupted  views across  the  site  and impact  on  the open  character  of  the  conservation area  itself. Mr Rollings spoke on  behalf  of  the  applicants in  support  of  their  application stating  that  the principle of  development  of the site  had already  been established and the  development  proposed would not  be overly  dominant  within  the  street  scene  and given  the  configuration  of  the  site  would recede  when seen  in  the  context  of Tudor  Close. It represented an exciting project  which  had generated much  interest  in  the  architectural  press and  would be  sustainable.  It was anticipated that it would achieve a  level 4 star BREAM rating.  

27.114

The  Planning  Officer responded  in  answer to the  assertion  that the  principle  of  development  on the site  had been established as  a result  of  the  previous decision  of  the  Planning  inspector  that in allowing the  change of  use  of  the  studio  he  had  indicated  that there  was a  substantial  difference between  the  conservation of  the  existing  building  and the  erection  of  a new building  on  site.  The  important  contribution  of  the  site  to the  conservation  area  had been fully  recognised.    

27.115

Councillor Mrs Theobald requested to see a photograph of the dwelling currently on site.  Councillor Smart requested to see views taken from the graveyard looking towards the site.

27.116

A  vote  was  taken  and on  a vote  of  10  with  2  abstentions  minded  to refuse  planning  permission was agreed  in  the  terms  set  out  below.  

27.117

RESOLVED - That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendations set out in Paragraph 8 of the report and resolves  that the Local Planning Authority  would  have  refused planning  permission for  the reasons set  out  below,  had an  appeal  against non-determination not  been lodged  by  the  applicant .

1. The proposed  dwelling ,  by  virtue  of  its  design,  bulk,  height and massing , is  considered to constitute  undesirable  development which  would  be  of  detriment to  the  character  and  appearance of  the  site,  the  adjacent  listed  buildings and  consequently would  fail to  preserve or  enhance the  character or  appearance of  the  Rottingdean  Conservation Area  or the  setting of  the  adjacent  Sussex Downs Area of  Outstanding  Natural  Beauty and  proposed South  Downs  National Park. The  proposal  is therefore  contrary  to  policies QD1,  QD”,  QD3,  HE3 and  NC8  of  the Brighton & Hove  Local Plan.   

2. The  application site forms an essential  part of  an open area between  Rottingdean  and  Saltdean which  runs from  the  Downs  to  the  parish  church. The  proposal would result in  an  intrusion into  this  important  visual scene  and a significant contrast with  the  open  character of this part of thee  Rottingdean  Conservation  Area and the  adjacent  Sussex  Downs Area  of  Out standing  Natural  Beauty  and proposed South  Downs  National  Park,  contrary to  policies  QD2,QD4,QD20, HE6 and  NC8 of  the  Brighton & Hove  Local Plan.

3. The  proposed  internal  layout of  the  development , by  virtue  of  the  creation  of a bathroom  with  no  natural  light or  ventilation,  represents an  energy inefficient form of  development,  contrary  to  policy  SU2 of  the  Brighton & hove  Local Plan.

4.  There  is  insufficient  evidence  to  show that adequate  levels  of  light  and ventilation for  the  northern  section of  the  lower  floor level of  the  proposed dwelling.  Consequently the  proposal  represents an  energy  inefficient form  of  development requiring  artificial  lighting and it  has  not  been  adequately  demonstrated that the  development  will  not  lead  to an unsatisfactory level  of  residential  amenity  for  future  occupiers , contrary  to  policies  SU2 and  QDD27 of  the  Brighton  &  Hove  Local Plan. 

Informatives

This decision is based on  drawing nos. A01, A1.0, A1.1, A1.2, A1.3, A2.0, A2.1, A3.0, A3.1, Garden  Plan1 and Garden  Plan 2 and  Documents in  support of  the  application  submitted  on  31  October  2008.

[Note : Councillors  Rufus and  Wells  abstained  from  voting  in  respect  of  the  above  application].

27.118

(v) DECISIONS ON APPLICATIONS DELEGATED TO THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT

27.119

RESOLVED – Those details of the applications determined by the Director of Environment under delegated powers be noted.

[Note 1: All decisions recorded in this minute are subject to certain conditions and reasons recorded in the Planning Register maintained by the Director of Environment. The register complies with the legislative requirements].

[Note 2 : A list of representations, received by the Council after the Plans List reports had been submitted for printing had been circulated to Members on the Friday preceding the meeting. (For copy see minute book). Where representations were received after that time they would be reported to the Chairman and Deputy Chairman and it would be at their discretion whether these should (in exceptional cases), be reported to the Committee. This in accordance with resolution 147.2 of the then, Sub Committee held ion 23 February 2005].