Agenda item - Plans List Applications, 30 July 2008

(i) TREES

55.1

There were none.

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

55.2

Application BH2008/10554, Sackville  Trading  Estate,  Sackville  Road– Demolition of  existing buildings with construction of  new  comprehensive development providing  a  mix of  uses  focusing around a  new  public square,  including : an A1 food  store.  A1 non-food retailing,  associated A2 – A5 retailing, residential apartments,  offices ,  underground  car parking,  associated  infrastructure works including improved  access,  servicing  and  public  realm  improvements .

55.3

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

55.4

Ms Paynter spoke on behalf of objectors to the  scheme, stating  that notwithstanding that  she considered the  current  scheme  inappropriate   and  an overdevelopment,  she  also  considered the  current  designation  of  the  site  for  B1 use should  be  revisited in  the  light  of current needs and shopping patterns and  the  fact  that  in  reality  the  site  no longer was  an  out  of  town  location.   Mr  Holmes  and  Mr  O’Callaghan spoke  on  behalf  of the  applicant  in  support  of  their  application.  It  was  their  belief  that  the  scheme  was innovative and  would  provide  a  good  mix of  uses.  They  considered  that   the  fundamental  principles  of  the  scheme were  acceptable  but  that  they  would  be  happy  for  consideration of  the  application  to  be  deferred  in  order  for  further discussions  to  take  place  with planning officers to  amend  some  elements  of  the  scheme.    

55.5

Councillor  Kennedy noted  that the  amenity  areas relative to  the  social  housing  element within  the  scheme  appeared  to  be  segregated .  It  was explained that the  scheme  had  been  designed in  that  way  at the  behest  of  the  potential  social landlord. Councillor  Steedman enquired  regarding  any  measures  which  the  applicants  had taken / intended  to  take  in  order  to  improve  permeability  through the site.  The  applicants  representatives  explained that  they had  sought  to  purchase  neighbouring  properties   in  order  to  connect  the  site  with other  parts  of  the  local  road network and  that   these  would be subject to further  negotiations.

55.6

Councillor  Mrs  Theobald enquired  whether discussions had  taken  place  with  the  existing retailers  on  site  regarding  its  future. It  was explained  that the  leases currently  held  by  existing retailers were  due to  be  renewed  in  the  near  future.  Following  termination and  completion  of  any  new  scheme they  would  have  the  opportunity  enter  into new  lease  arrangements for  premises  on  the  re developed  site .

55.7

Councillor  Barnett stated  that she  considered  the  proposal  represented  overdevelopment  of  the  site  and  that  the  one  access from  Sackville  Road was  inadequate for  the  level  of  development  proposed as was the  level  of  amenity  space proposed  relative  to  the social  housing  on  site.  She  also  considered   that  it  was  unacceptable  to  segregate  the  amenity  space in  the  manner suggested. Councillor  Mrs  Theobald considered  that overall the scheme was  too  large,  and  would be  overly  dominant  and  would  dwarf  the  neighbouring  street  scene.  Councillor  Carden concurred  stating  that he  considered  that  the  scheme  would give  rise  to unacceptable  levels  of  congestion  to  the  adjacent  road network. The  only  access  /  egress  to  the  site  would be  from  Sackville  Road  which  was  already  very  heavily  trafficked .  Councillors  smart  and  Wells  concurred that  the  scheme would be too large and  would  exacerbate  existing  congestion  to the  local road  network.   

55.8

Councillors  Steedman and  Kennedy considered  that  the  lack of  permeability  through  the site  and  the  segregation  of  the   various  housing  elements  made  the  scheme unacceptable. Councillor  Simson  stated  that she  liked  the  design of  the  scheme  and  the  mix  of   business/  residential  uses  proposed,  although  she  had  some  concerns regarding the  overall  scale  of  the  proposed  development.

55.9

In  answer  to  questions regarding the  proposed percentage for  art  relative  to  the  scheme,  the  Development  Control Manager explained  that such  monies were  worked  out  in  line  with  Council  policy  using an  agreed  formula. The  form  of  the  “art” to  be  provided  was  decided  by  a Panel  and  Local  Ward  Councillors  were  consulted  in  respect  of  this  matter.    

55.10

A vote was taken and on a vote of 9  for  with  1 abstention  planning permission  was  refused  on  the  grounds  set  out below.

55.11

RESOLVED -That the Planning Committee having  considered  the  above application considered  that  planning  permission should  be  refused  on  the  grounds  that   :

(1) The  development  by  reason of scale,  bulk,  mix  of  uses  and  capacity  of  the  site  to  accommodate  the  proposed  development  reliant  on  a  single  access  point is  considered  to  represent  an  overdevelopment of  the  site.  The  proposal  is therefore  contrary  to  policies TR1,  QD1,  QD2,  QD3,  QD27,  HO3,  HO4,  HO5 and  HO6 of  the  Brighton &  Hove  Local  Plan ;

(2) The  proposal would  be  contrary  to  policy  EM3 of  the  Brighton  &  Hove  Local  Plan which  seeks  to  restrict the  loss  of  industrial  /  office  uses  unless  it  has  been  demonstrated  that the  use  is  no  longer  viable.  Applicants  are  expected  to  demonstrate active  marketing  of  the  unit on  competitive terms  for  a  period  of  twelve  months or  more. No  information has  been submitted with  the  application to  demonstrate the  use  of  office  space  is  no  longer  viable,  particularly given  the  out  of  date information  submitted.  Furthermore,  if  a unit is  demonstrated to  be  redundant ,  preference is  given  to  alternative  employment  generating  uses  or  affordable  housing;

(3)  The  applicant  has  failed to  demonstrate that the  introduction of  5,488 a square metre  food  store to  5,155  square  metres of  retail  floor  space  (with  potential  for approximately 3600  square  metres  of  mezzanine space)  would  not  have  a  detrimental  impact  on  existing  town  and  local  centres in  order  to  ensure  that the  vitality and  viability  is  not  compromised.  The  development  is  therefore  considered  contrary  to  PPS 6  and  policies  SR1 and  SR2 of  the  Brighton &  Hove  Local  Plan ;

(4) Policy SR12 of  the  Brighton & Hove  Local  Plan  refers to  large  premises  falling within  A3 (restaurants  and  cafes) and  A4 (pubs  and  bars) of  the  Use  Classes  order and states new cafes,  restaurants,  bars or  public  houses  or  extensions to  such  facilities with  a total  resultant  public  floor  space  in  excess of  150  square  metres  will  be  permitted provided a)  the  premises  would  not  be  within  400m  of  another  establishment  falling  into   the  above  category ;  b)  the  premises do  not, or  will  not operate  within , or  abutting, premises  containing  residential  accommodation except  that occupied  by  staff  of  the premises; c) the  use  will  not  cause  nuisance or  an  increase  in  disturbance  to nearby residents  by  reason  of  noise  from  within  the  premises l;  and  d) the  use  is  unlikely  to  result  in  increased levels  of  public  order  disturbance  to  nearby  residents  as  a  result  of  people  leaving  the  premises  late at night and  dispersing to  transport  and  other  destinations .  No  information has  been submitted in  order  to  allow  an  assessment  ;   

(5) The  proposed  development,  by  reason of  its  form ,  bulk,  scale  and  positioning in  the  site  and  external appearance, would  be out  of  keeping with  surrounding  development  and  represents  an  incongruous  feature that fails  to  respect  the  context  of  its  setting.  The  proposal is  therefore  contrary  to  policies QD1,  QD2,  QD3,  QD5, HO3  and  HO4  of  the  Brighton  &  Hove  Local  Plan  ;

(6) Policy  HO3 requires  developments  to  incorporate  a  mix  of  dwelling types  and  sizes that  reflects  and  responds  to  Brighton  &  Hove’s housing  need. The  proposed  mix  off  residential accommodation fails  to  provide  a  sufficient   number  of  three  bedroom  units.  The  proposal  therefore   fails  top  provide  an  adequate  standard of  accommodation to  the  detriment   of  future  occupiers  and  the  City’s  housing  stock ;

(7)  The  proposal would  result  in an  unsatisfactory  level  of  private  amenity space which  would be to  the  detriment  of  the living  conditions of  any future  residents  of  the  scheme  and is  cont6rary  to  policies  HO5 and  QD27 of  the  Brighton  &  Hove  Local  Plan ;

(8) Policy  HO6 of  the  Brighton &  Hove  Local Plan requires  the  provision  for  out  door  recreation  space .  Where it  is  not  practicable or  appropriate  for  all  or  part  of  the  space  -  requirement  to  be  provided  on  site ,  contributions to  their  provision on  a  suitable  alternative  site may be  acceptable. The  proposed  communal  amenity  space  fails  to  provide  children’s  equipped play  space and  adult  /  youth outdoor  sports facilities . Furthermore,  the  quality  of  the  space provided is also  questioned,  given  the  close  proximity  of  the  amenity  space  to  neighbouring  commercial  units   and the  service  area for the  retail  units  and residential units and the  communal  amenity  space  to the  north  will  be  overshadowed  by  the  proposed  building structures.  It  would  be appropriate  and  practicable  for  a  proportion  of  the  outdoor  recreation  space  to  be  provided  on  site   in this  location.  The  proposal  would  thereby  be  contrary  to  the  policy ,  to  the  detriment  of  the  amenities  of   the future occupiers  of  the  properties;

(9) Policy  H013  of  the  Brighton  &  Hove Local Plan  requires  new  residential dwellings to  be  built  to  lifetime homes  standards whereby  the  accommodation can  be  adapted  to  meet  the  needs  of  people with  disabilities without  major  structural  alterations.  The  scheme  fails to  incorporate  lifetime home  standards  to  the  design  of  the  flats  and  the scheme  fails to  provide  an  adequate  number  of  wheelchair  accessible  flats  and  does not  meet  the  required  standards;

(10) the  proposed  development  would  by  reason  of  its  height,  scale  and positioning  in  close proximity to  the  north  west  boundary of  the  site  lead to a  significant  overbearing effect  and  increased sense  of  enclosure  to neighbouring  properties  to  the  detriment  of  the  loving  conditions  of  existing  occupiers.  Furthermore, the  development by  reason  of  height and scale  of  the  proposed  blocks  would  have  a  detrimental  impact  on  the  amenity  of  future occupiers.  The  proposal  would  therefore  be  contrary  to  planning  policies  QD1,  Qd2,  and QD27  of  the  Brighton &  Hove  Local Plan;

(11) the  application proposes internal bathrooms  throughout the  development which  would be  reliant  on  artificial lighting  and  mechanical ventilation to  an  unacceptable  level.  The  proposed  development is therefore  contrary to  policy  SU2 of  the  Brighton &  hove  Local  Plan  and  SPGBH16 : Renewable Energy  an d  Energy efficiency in  New  developments ;

(12) The  applicant  has failed  to demonstrate that the  proposed  CHP  plant  would  deliver  a  reduction  of  29% in  carbon  emissions as suggested in  the  supporting  documentation and  will  not  have  a  detrimental  impact on  neighbouring  amenity by  reason  of  noise  and disturbance .  the  proposal would  therefore  be  contrary  to  planning  policies  SU2,  SU10 and  QD27  of  the  Brighton  &  hove  Local Plan ;

(13) A  high proportion  of  the  site  falls  into  noise  category  C  location for noise  exposure.  The applicant  has  failed to demonstrate  that the  proposed  residential occupiers  will  not   be unduly affected  in  terms  of  noise,  disturbance  and  vibration  from neighbouring  industrial uses together with  traffic from  Old Shoreham  Road  and  Sackville Road.  It  is  thereby  prohibiting  a  full  assessment  of  the  impact  of  neighbouring  amenity  and  the  applicants have  failed  to  establish  that the  development  is in  accordance with policies  QD27 and  SU10  of the   Brighton  &  hove Local Plan;

(14) Policy  TR1  of  the  Brighton  & Hove  Local Plan requires  developments  to  provide  for  the  demand for  travel  that is created . The  level  of  parking provided  fails to  provide  for  the  demands  generated  by  the  development  and  the  accompanying  Transport  Assessment fails  to  consider  the  ability  of  public  transport  and cycling networks  to  accommodate  the  increased demand. The application  is therefore  contrary  to  planning  policy  TR1 of  the  Brighton  &  Hove Local Plan;

(15)  the  applicant  has  failed  to  demonstrate  how  the  car  parking ,  disabled  car parking  and  cycle  parking will  be  allocated to  the  proposed  uses  of  the development. Furthermore, the spacing of cycle stands is not adequate. The proposal is therefore contrary to  policies TR14., Tr18 and Tr19  of the  Brighton  &  Hove  Local  Plan;

(16) The  applicant  has  failed  to  establish  whether  the  proposed  traffic  signal controlled  junction and  surrounding junctions  can work  effectively and  maintain the  free  flow  of  traffic on  a  strategic  route  for  the  city.  The application is  therefore  contrary  to  policy TR1 of  the  Brighton  & Hove  Local  Plan;

(17) Policy  TR16  of  the  Brighton &  Hove  Local  Plan states that planning permission will  only  be  ranted for  developments that will not  affect  the use  of  the railway  sidings and coal depot adjacent to Hove  Station,  together with  the  road and  rail  access to them,  because  they have been  identified as  a  potential  site for  the  transfer  of  waste onto  the  railway system by  policy WLP7 of  the  East  Sussex and  Brighton &  Hove Waste  Local  Plan. Insufficient  information has been submitted in support  of  the application to ensure  the  future protection of  the  allocated site to  the  south  of  the  application site.

Informatives  :   

1. This decision is  based  on drawings submitted on  15  May 2008.(a  list  (a  list would  be  provided on  the  Additional  Representations  List).

[Note 1  :  Having  declared  a  personal  and  prejudicial  interest  in  respect  of  the  above application  Councillor  Davey  left  the  meeting  during  its consideration  and  took  no  part  in the  discussion  or  voting  thereon ].

[Note 2: Councillor Simson abstained from voting in respect of the above application].       

55.12

ApplicationBH2008/00955,Woodingdean Business Park, Bexhill Road,  Woodingdean – Continuation of master  plan,  with  construction of  6  light  industrial (B1) units  in  two  buildings and  the  provision of  30  parking  spaces and  associated  landscaping.

55.13

 There  was  a  presentation  from  the  Senior  Planning  Officer.It was noted that this application had formed the subject of a site visit prior to the meeting.

55.14

Councillors  Kennedy  and  Steedman sought  clarification  regarding  provision of  acoustic  screening  and  the  requirements  placed  on  the  applicant  in  meeting  such  conditions.  It  was  explained  that the  applicant  would  be  required  to  provide  full  details and  an  independent  assessment  prior  to   occupation  of  an independent assessment  prior  to occupation  of the  development. They  were  of  the  view that  the  additional  condition  suggested  by  the  officer  in  her  presentation  would  be  appropriate i.e. to  add  a  condition to  provide  acoustic /  visual screening  between  the  boundaries of  the  site  and 576 Falmer  Road and  21  -  39  Sandhurst  Road  inclusive.

55.15

Councillors  Simson  and  Wells  welcomed  the  scheme  which  represented further  development of  the  site.  Councillor Simson referred  to  the  existing  acoustic  screen   that had  been  provided  elsewhere in  the  development concurring  with  the  views  of  Councillors  Kennedy  and  Simson  and  stating  that   this had  been  very  effective  in  preventing  noise  breakout from  the  site  to  neighbouring residential  properties.      

55.16

Mr  Pennington (Brighton &  Hove  Federation of  Disabled People) sought  confirmation  regarding  provision  of  disabled  parking  spaces  on  the  site. It  was  confirmed  that such  spaces  would  be  available to  any  who were  mobility  impaired and  was not  solely  for  use  by  blue  badge  holders.

55.17

Councillor  Steedman  formally  proposed  that an  additional  condition be  added requiring  addition  acoustic fencing  to  be  provided,  this  was  seconded  by  Councillor  Kennedy  and approved  by  Members  of  the  Sub  Committee.

55.18

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

55.19

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 subject  to  a further condition  to  the  effect  that :

Notwithstanding  the  approved  plans  prior  to  commencement  of  development full  details of  boundary treatment shall  be  submitted  to  and  approved  in  writing  by  the  Local  Planning  Authority . The  development shall  be  implemented in  accordance  with  the  approved  plans and the  boundary  treatment  shall be  retained  as  such  thereafter. Such  details shall in particular provide  for  acoustic  and  visual  screening  between   the  boundaries of  the  site  and  576  Falmer  Road and  21  -  39  Sandhust Road inclusive .    

(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 30 JULY 2008

55.20

Application BH2008/01357,  17  -  19 Oxford  Street,  Brighton – Change  of  use of  ground  and  first  floor from class A2 (finance  and  professional  services) to  class  A3 (restaurant and  café)  and  A4 (drinking  establishment) with  associated  internal  alterations and  rear  roof  terrace. 

55.21

There  was  a  presentation  from  the  senior  Planning  Officer. It  was  noted  that this  application had  formed  the  subject  of  a  site  visit prior  to  the  meeting .

55.22

Mr Merrington spoke  on  behalf of neighbouring  objectors stating  that   the  proposed  use a  café/ bar/  restaurant would operate from  premises  directly adjoining a  terrace  of  residential  dwelling  houses. It  was  proposed  that  these  premises  would  operate until  2.00am  7  days  a  week  and  it  was  considered  that this  would  result  in an  unacceptable  loss  of  amenity  and  noise  disturbance  which would  be  detrimental  to  the  quality of  life  of  those  living  in  the  neighbouring  dwelling  houses. There  were  children  living  in  all  of  the  neighbouring  dwelling  houses and  six  bedroom  windows were  located  in  close  proximity to  the  proposed  terrace  at  first  floor level  which  would  be  in  use  until 10.00pm  and as  a  smoking  terrace  thereafter.    

55.23

Ms  Badain spoke  on  behalf  of  the  applicants in  support of  their  application and  explained  that  that  the  premises  were  intended to  provide a high quality  brasserie for  use by local people  and  would  display  art work  by  local students. The  crime  rate within  the  area was  relatively  high  and  the  current semi  derelict  condition  of  the  building  detracted  from  the  area.  Licensed  door  staff  would  be  on  employed at  weekends and  the  applicant  had  worked closely  with    officers  of  the  environmental health  department  to  ensure  that   the  premises would operate  in  a  neighbourly manner  and would  not  give  rise to nuisance.        

55.24

Councillor  West  spoke  in  his  capacity as  a  Local  Ward  Councillor setting  out  his  objections  to  the  scheme,  which   he  considered  were  completely  unacceptable in  such  close  proximity to  domestic dwellings.  He reiterated the concerns of local residents.     

55.25

Councillor  Kennedy  queried  whether  it  had  been  established  that a  suitable  use  within the  existing use  class could not  be  found this  was suited to  the sites  location whereas it  was  arguable  whether  the  proposed use  would  be.

55.26

Councillor Barnett queried the requirement for  door supervisors at  the  premises  at  weekends, given  the type  of establishment proposed.  It  was  explained  that such  staff  would  be  employed  in  order  to   contain any  potential for noise  or  other nuisance. Although permission  had  been  sought  of  the  licensing  authority  to  operate  until  2.00am it  was  not  intended  that the  premises  would  be  open  until  that  Time  every  evening . In  response  to  further  questions  it  was  also  explained  that  the  tables  and  chairs on  the  roof  terrace  would  be  moved  inside  the  first floor  restaurant at 10.00pm  each  evening  and  that  thereafter the terrace would be  used  to  accommodate  those  wishing to  smoke (no more  than  four  would  be  permitted  at any time), The  roof  space was  fully  enclosed  and  an acoustic   wall  would  be  provided  to  that  area.                

55.27

Councillor  Kennedy enquired  whether  the  roof  terrace  would  be  covered .  The  Environmental  Health  Officer  explained  that it  would  not but  that the  applicant  would  be  required  to  provide  full  details  regarding  the  acoustic  screen  and  other  soundproofing arrangements to be applied  to  the  party  walls  with  the  neighbouring  residential  properties  prior  to  the  premises  opening  for  business.  In  response  to  a question of Councillor  Mrs  Theobald   regarding the  number  of  diners  permitted  to  be  seated  at tables  upstairs  and  throughout  the  establishment  as a  whole it  was  explained that  a  maximum  of  30 diners  could  be served  upstairs, although  it  was envisaged  that  the  actual  number  would  often  be  fewer  than  that. In answer  to  questions  of  Councillor  Smart  it  was  explained that in  view  of  the  use  class  for  that part of the building  alcohol  could  only be  consumed  at first  floor  level by  those  who  were  purchasing  a  meal. The  ground  floor  would  operate  as  a bar .      

55.28

Councillor  Barnett stated  that when visited the  site  it  had been apparent  that  the  premises  would  abut  well  maintained  family  homes .  in  her  view  she  did  not  consider  that it  would  be  possible  to operate  as  suggested  without  detriment to the neighbouring  residential properties .  Given  the close  proximity  of  a  number  of  bedroom windows  these  neighbours  would effectively  be  prevented  from opening  their  windows  irrespective  of   the  weather  as in  doing  so  they  would  be  subject  to  noise  and fumes  from  those smoking  on  the  terrace. Councillors Smart,  Mrs  Theobald  and Wells concurred  in  that view .  They  were  also  of  the  view  that there  appeared  to  be  a  lack  of  clarity  regarding  the  use  to  which  the first floor  was  actually  to be  put  given  that reference  had  been   made  to  it  both  as  a  conference /  meeting  space  and  as  a restaurant .  It was  not  considered  that the  available  space  was  such that it  could  be  used  for  both .          

55.29

Councillors Davey, Kennedy  and  Steedman were  of  the  view  that irrespective of  whether  or  not  an acoustic  wall  was  to  be  provided  there  would  inevitably  be  noise  break  out  if  the  terrace  was  not  covered. Four  people using  the  terrace to  smoke could still  generate a significant  level  of  noise  late  at  night . Overall  Members  were  of  the  view  that the  amenity of  residents  should  be  respected  and that the  proposal ultimately  ran  contrary  to  planning  policy  and  should  be rejected .    

55.30

A  vote was  taken and  on  a  vote  of  7 to  1  with  3  abstentions planning  permission  was  refused  on  the  grounds set  out  below.  

55.31

RESOLVED – That having  taken  into  consideration the  reasons  for  the  recommendation set  out  in  the  report  Members  are resolved  to  refuse  planning  permission on  the  grounds that the  rear  roof  terrace and  use  of  the  building as  a late night  drinking  establishment  would,  by  reason of  noise disturbance,  unduly  impact  on  the living  conditions  and amenity  of  the  residents  and  occupiers  of  the  neighbouring  properties  and  as  such  the  proposal  is  contrary to  policies  SU9,  Su10, QD2, QD27 and  SR12  of  the  Brighton  &  Hove  Local  Plan 2005.     

[ Note 1 : A  vote  was  taken and  on  a vote  of  7  to  1  with  3  abstentions Members  voted  that planning  permission be  refused  on  the  grounds  set  out above].

[ Note 2 :  Councillor  Kennedy  proposed  that planning  permission  be  refused .  This  was  seconded  by  Councillor  Davey .  A  recorded  vote  was  then  taken.  Councillors Allen,  Barnett,  Davey, Kennedy,  Smart,  Steedman  and  Mrs  Theobald voted  that planning  permission  be  refused. Councillor Simson voted  that planning  permission  be  granted.  Councillors  Hyde  (The Chairman), Carden and  Wells  abstained .  Therefore on  a  vote  of  7  to  1  with  3  abstentions planning  permission  was refused  on  the  grounds  set  out ].         

(iv) Other Applications

55.32

Application BH2007/01574, Hove Rugby  Club,  Hove  Recreation  Ground,  Shirley  Drive, – Extensions to  clubhouse to  provide additional changing  rooms,  new  clubroom and  entrance  porch .

55.33

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

55.34

 Councillor  Carden  sought  confirmation regarding the  actual  size of  the  hard standing  around  the  clubhouse,  that shown on the  submitted  plans  appeared  to  be  different  from   that indicated when the  Development  Control  Manager had  paced  that area  out  during  the  course of the  previous  day’s  site  visit. Councillor  Steedman  concurred  that the actual  area  to  be  used  for  that purpose  appeared  to  be  significantly  larger  than that indicated  by  the plans .  The Development Control Manager confirmed   that there  would  need  to  be  encroachment onto  the  existing  hard  standing  area. It  was  agreed  that Members  would  defer  consideration of  the  application  pending  clarification  of  this  matter .            

55.35

RESOLVED - That   consideration of  the  above  application be  deferred pending  clarification  regarding   the  actual  change  to  and  size  of  the hard  standing  around clubhouse.

55.36

Application BH2008/00565, Stanmer Park Access Road,  (off A270 Lewes  Road), Brighton – Upgrade and widening  by  up  to  1 metre of  Stanmer  Park access road. To join with approved link road into Sussex University. This is an additional application  to  the  approved Falmer  Community  Stadium application (ref :  BH2001/02418).

55.37

 Members  considered  that it  would  be  beneficial  to  carry  out  a site  visit  prior  to  determining  the  above application. 

55.38

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

55.39

Application BH2007/004483, R/o 63/ 65 Hove Park Road, Hove - Demolition of existing garage and erection of single detached dwelling.

55.40

Councillor Mrs Theobald  sought  confirmation  regarding the  distance  from the  proposed  dwelling  house to the neighbouring  property,  regarding trees  on  site  which were  protected  by  tpo’s  and  whether  or  not  the  frontage  of  the dwelling  for  which  permission  was  sought  respected  the  existing  building  line. The  Planning  officer  explained  that the  space to the nearest  dwelling  was approximately  five  metres and that none  of  the  existing  on  site  trees  were  subject to  tpo’s. There  would  be  a  slight  breach  of  the  existing  building  line  which  was  considered acceptable. 

55.41

Councillor  Mrs Theobald  considered  the  proposal  to  be  unacceptable  in  that the  existing  building  line  would  not  be  respected ,  and  as  such  would  be  detrimental  to the  prevailing  street  scene.  She  also objected  to  any  diminution  of  the  existing  gardens forming  the  application  site  which  would  occur  should planning  permission  be  granted . 

55.42

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

55.43

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  Mrs Theobald wished  her  name  to  be  recorded  as having  voted  that planning  permission be  refused .  

55.44

Application BH2008/01326, 18 Bishops Road, and Hove -  First  floor  extension and  alterations to  convert bungalow to  two  storey  house (re submission).

55.45

Members  considered that it would be  beneficial  to  carry  out  a site  visit  prior  to  determining  the  above  application.

55.46

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

55.47

Application BH2008/00939, Land on The Elms, The Green, Rottingdean - Proposed new courtyard dwelling.

55.48

The Planning  Officer  gave  a  detailed presentation detailing  the  reasons refusal was recommended .  

Mr Harris spoke as a neighbouring objector  on  behalf of  objectors  to  the  scheme and Rottingdean  Parish  Council . He  stated  that notwithstanding  that the  grounds of  The Elms  were  not  open  to  the  public  they  still  formed part  of  Rudyard  Kipling’s  original garden and  as such  their  present form should  be  respected. It was  considered  that proposal  would  be  detrimental to their  setting, the setting  of  the  listed  building  and  to  the  surrounding  conservation  area. Mr Moore     spoke  on  behalf  of  the  applicant  in  support  of  their  application. He  explained  that the  proposals had  received strong  local support  and  would  result  in  an  attractive  development which  would  meet all  lifetime homes  criteria  to  a  very  high  standards.  The  development  would  only  be  visible  from  within  the  sites  own  boundaries.       

55.49

Mr  Small  (CAG) reiterated the  Group’s objections stating  that  they  objected  to  development  of  the  site  in  principle  bearing  in  mind   its  architectural  and  historical significance. Much  of  the  original garden  had been eroded over  time and any  further  loss should  be  resisted.  Councillor  Kennedy stated  that although  in  her  view  the    scheme  was  sensitively it  was  inappropriate  on  the  site  proposed .

55.50

Councillor  Wells  considered  the  proposal  to  be  unacceptable .  if  approved  the  scheme  could  set  an unfortunate  precedent  which  could  make  it  difficult  to  resist  further  development  taking  place  in  the  vicinity  of  this  important  site . Councillors  Barnett and  smart  concurred  in  that view . 

55.51

A  vote  was  taken  and  Members voted  unanimously  that planning  permission  be  refused on the  grounds  set  out  below .

55.52

RESOLVED -  That the  Committee has taken into  consideration and  agrees  with  the  reasons  for  the  recommendation hereunder and resolves  to  refuse planning permission  for   the  following  reasons:

(1) The  proposal would  result in  a  substantial  loss  of  the green character  of  “The  Elms” and  historic original  village  green. It  would  intrude into  the  setting  and  views off  the  Kipling  Gardens and the  village  green,  detracting from  the  character and  appearance of  these  important open  spaces and  this  part  of  the  Conservation Area,  contrary  to  policies  QD2,  QD$,  Qd20 and  HE6 of  the  Brighton  &  Hove  Local  Plan;

(2) if  this  proposal  were  permitted the  Local  Planning  Authority would  be  likely  to  find  it more  difficult to  resist  similar proposals  in  the  vicinity,  the  cumulative  effect of  which  would  be  to  significantly alter  the  historic  form  and  layout  of  properties  within the  immediate locality to  the  serious detriment of  the  character of  this  part  of  the  Conservation  Area,  contrary  to  policy  HE6 of  the  Brighton &  Hove  Local Plan;

(3) The  principle  of  developing  a  new  dwelling in  the  original  cartilage  of  “The Elms”,  which is  considered to  be  of  significant historical  merit and prime  importance to  the  setting  of  this  Listed Building in  its  entirety,  is  considered  to  be  inappropriate and  unacceptable,  and  would  result  in  harm  to  the  setting  of  the  Grade 11 Listed  Building, contrary  to policy  HE3 of  the  Brighton &  Hove  Local Plan ;

(4)  The  proposed  dwelling  by  virtue  of  its size and  position would  result  in  a  substantial  loss  of  the  historic  cartilage  and  open  garden  setting  of “The  Elms” representing  intrusion upon  the  views  of  and  from  the  house,  detracting from this  Grade 11  Listed  Building,  contrary  to  policy  HE3  off  the  Brighton  &  Hove  Local  Plan.       

(5) Having  regard  to  the  existing built  form  and  layout  of  the  adjoining  properties  which  comprise  residential dwellings set  within  spacious  plots,  the  proposed dwelling by  way  of  its  limited site  area  and  close  proximity  to  Kipling  Cottage and the  Elms  would  represent a  form of  development  which would  be  out  of   keeping  with  the  present  character  of  the  area and detrimental to  the  quality  of  amenity currently  experienced  by  neighbouring  properties  as  a result of  enclosing the  existing  space between  the  buildings contrary  to  policies QD1,  QD2 and QD27 f the  Brighton  & Hove  Local  Plan;  and 

(6) The  applicant has failed  to  demonstrate that the  proposed  dwelling  would  incorporate measures to  ensure  a  satisfactory level  of  sustainability and  has failed to demonstrate  that the  development would  meet  a  minimum BREEAM  / Echomes rating  of  at  least “very good”,  or a  Code  for  sustainable Homes  rating  of  Level  3.  As such  the  proposal is  considered to  be  contrary to  policy  SU2 of  the  Brighton  and  Hove  Local  Plan.

Informative :

1. This decision  is  based on  drawing nos.FW1/10.11.12,13B,14,15B,16B, 17B, 19B,20, 21B and  22,  Design  &  access  Statement and  SAP &  Environmental  Impact Certificate all  submitted  on  14  March 2008.  

55.53

Application BH2008/00940, Land on The Elms, The Green, Rottingdean – Proposed new courtyard dwelling on land at The Elms. .    

55.54

A  vote  was  taken  and  Members voted  unanimously  that listed  building  approval  be  refused  on  the  grounds set  out  below.

55.55

RESOLVED –  That  the  Committee has taken  into  consideration  and  agrees with  the  reasons set out  hereunder and  resolves  to  refuse  listed  building  consent,  for   the  following  reasons :

(1) The  principle of developing  a  new  dwelling  on  the  original  cartilage of  “The  Elms”,  which  is   considered  to  be  of  significant  historical  merit  and  prime  importance to  the  setting of  this  Listed  Building in  its entirety,  is  considered to be  an  unacceptable  form  of development resulting  in  harm  to  the  setting of  the  Grade  II Listed  Building,  contrary  to  policy  HE3 of  the  Brighton &  Hove  Local  Plan;

(2)  The  Proposed  dwelling  by  virtue  of  its  size  and  position would  result in  a  substantial loss  of  the  historic  cartilage   and  open garden  setting of  “The Elms” representing an  intrusion in  the  views  of  and  from  the  house,  detracting  from  the  setting  of  the  Grade II Listed  Building,  contrary  to  policy  HE3 of  the  Brighton  &  Hove Local Plan ; and

(3) Insufficient  information  has been  submitted  by  the  applicant ,  in  the  form  of  a   method  statement for  the  retention  and  protection during  and  after  works,  of  the  listed  flint wall  on  the  northern and eastern boundary  of  the  application site.  Therefore,  the  applicant  has  failed  to  demonstrate that  the  proposal would  not  result  in  harm to  the  structural integrity  of  this wall and  would  not  harm  its  character, appearance and  architectural and  historic interest,  contrary  to  policy  HE1  of  the  Brighton &  Hove  Local  Plan.

Informative  :      

1. This decision is based on drawing no.  W1 /10,  11,  12,  13B,  14,  15B,  16B,  17B,  18B,  19B,  20,  21B and  22. Design &  Access  Statement , and  SAP  &  Environmental  Impact  Certificate  all  submitted  on  14  March  2008 .  

55.56

Application BH2007/04674,  68 -  70 High  Street,  Rottingdean – Redevelopment of  site  to  provide  9  three  bedroom  town  houses with  integral  garages,  built  in  2  blocks, with  accommodation on  four  floors (Amendment to previously  approved  scheme BH2007/00617 omitting the  4  visitor parking spaces)   

55.57

Members considered that it  would  be  beneficial  to  carry  out  a  site  visit  prior  to  determining  the  above application .

55.58

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

55.59

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

55.60

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].