Agenda item - Plans List Applications, 20 August 2008

(i) TREES

70.1

The  Committee has  taken into  consideration and agrees with  the  reasons  for  the recommendations set  out  in  Paragraph 7  of  the  respective  reports  and  resolves  to  grant  consent  subject  to the  conditions set  out  in  the  reports in  respect of  the  following  :

BH2008/02444, University  of  Brighton,  Lewes Road,  Brighton ;

BH2008/02387,  Balfour  Junior  School,  Balfour  Road,  Brighton

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

70.2

Application BH2008/1569, The Wellsbourne Centre, Whitehawk Road, Brighton – Demolition of derelict wing of existing Wellsbourne Centre. Construction of Primary Health Centre to accommodate two doctors’ surgeries (existing Whitehawk and Broadway) and ancillary pharmacy.  Extension to  existing  parking  facilities (community car  park), together with  new  pedestrian access  (paths  and  graded  walkway) .

70.3.

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

70.4

The  Planning  Officer  gave  a  detailed  presentation setting  out  the  constituent  elements  of  the  scheme. 

70.5

Councillor Kennedy requested sight  of  the  detailed  elevational  drawings and  confirmation  regarding  materials  and  finishes  to  be  used. She  supported  the  application if completed  as indicated but had concerns however  regarding  the  “unfinished” appearance  of  the  neighbouring  children’s centre to  white  a  white  render  finish  was to  have  been  applied.  To date this work had not been carried out.

70.6

Councillor Steedman requested that the implementation of conditions on the Children’s Centre building should be followed up.  Whilst on site it had been noted that render and a green roof had not been implemented.  The Planning Officer agreed to do this.

70.7

Councillor Wells sought confirmation regarding the proposed cladding material.  At  various  locations  in  the  City where  cedar  had  been used  this had  not  weathered  well.    It  was  explained  that larch  was  to  be  used  in  this  instance  and  the  Chairman  explained  that  this  material  which  had been  used  in  construction  of  the  children’s  centre  was  weathering  in  an acceptable manner, as had been seen on the site visit.

 70.8

Councillor  Hawkes  sought  clarification regarding  use  of   the  sum set  aside  towards  sustainable  transport  measures . The  Planning  Officer  explained  this  was to  be  used  for  the  provision of  Kassel  kerbs  at  the  north  and  southbound  St  David’s  Hall  bus  stops.

70.9

Mr  Pennington,  Brighton  &  Hove  Federation  of  Disabled  People and  councillors  Hawkes  and  Pidgeon  queried  the  number  of  disabled  parking  bays  to  be  provided  (2),  which  seemed too  few  bearing  in  mind  the potential number  of  patients  to  be  covered  by  this  new  combined  facility.  Councillor  Hawkes was  of  the  view  that this  appeared  inconsistent as  other  newly  opened  comparable  centres,  elsewhere  in  the  city  appeared  to  include  a  larger  number  of  such  bays. 

70.10

The  Development Control Manager  explained  that the  number of  spaces  included fell  within  the standard  set out in Supplementary Planning Guidance 4 (Parking Standards).  This  number  could  be  amended  subsequently  in  the  light  of  operating  experience . In  answer  to  questions  of  Councillor  Norman  regarding  whether  the  number  of  spaces  could  be  revised  by  the  Committee  at  that meeting,  the  Development  Control  Manager  explained  that this  would be an amendment to the scheme which would require amendments to the application.  In  consequence  the  Committee  was required  to  determine  the  application  as  put  before  them.     

70.11

Mr  Pennington,  Brighton &  Hove  Federation  of  Disabled  People considered  it a  significant  failing  that whilst  dropped  kerbs   were  to  provided  within and at the  immediate perimeters  of  the  scheme  a  wider  survey  taking  in  the  likely  route of  travel  of  those  using  the  centre  had  not been carried  out.  The  Highway Authority Officer explained that this  was  not  required  of  the  applicant  relative  to  the  size  of  the  scheme  proposed.  The Development  Control  Manager  confirmed  that  the  scheme  would  be  fully  compliant  with  SPG4  and  would  also  need  to  meet  the  requirements  of  the  Disability Discrimination Act.

70.12

Councillor Steedman whilst  supporting  the  scheme  considered  that it  would  be  more  appropriate  for  a  “brown or green roof”  rather  than  green sedum roof to  be  provided  as  this  would  be  more  sustainable  and  would  support  a greater  level  of  biodiversity.  He  proposed  that  a  condition to  that effect  be  added  to  any  planning  permission given. Members  concurred  in  that view  and  agreed  thereon  when  voting  in  respect  of  this  application.

70.13

A vote was taken and Members voted unanimously that  minded  to  grant  permission  be  given  in  the  terms set  out  below .

70.14

RESOLVED -  (1)That the Committee has  taken  into  consideration  and  agrees with  the  reasons for  the  recommendation set  out  in   paragraph  8 the  report and  resolves that  it  is  minded  to   grant planning  permission  subject to  the  completion  of  a Section 106  Obligation  to  secure  a  financial contribution  of  £30,000 towards the  Sustainable Transport Strategy and (to  be  used for  the  provision  of  Kassell kerbs  at the  north and southbound St. David’s Hall bus stops)  and  to  the Conditions  and  Informatives  set  out  in  the  report and  to  addition  of  the  following  condition and informative:

No development shall take place until details of a green roof have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The approved scheme shall be implemented as part of the development and shall be retained as such thereafter.   Reason: To ensure that the development is sustainable and makes efficient use of energy, water and materials and in accordance with policies S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and SU2 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

 Informative:

Green or Biodiverse roofs:   support biodiverse vegetation and are designed to support species-rich habitats such as chalk grassland. Brown Roofs use recycled rubble to support specialist plant communities. For more information see www.livingroofs.org  

(2) Minded  to  refuse if  the  Section  106  Obligation is  not  signed  by  all  parties by  4  September  2008.

(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 20 AUGUST 2008

70.15

Application BH2008/01485,  25  The  Ridgeway,  Woodingdean – addition of  new  first  floor  storey  with  rooms in  the  roof,  single  storey  extension,  front  oriole  windows  and  entrance canopy.   

70.16

The Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation setting out the reasons for the Officers’ recommendations. 

70.17

Mr  Hughes spoke  on  behalf  of  the  applicant in  support of  their  application displaying examples  of  similar  treatments  which  had  been  effected  in  the  immediate  vicinity,  some  of  them  granted  under  delegated  authority.  The applicant had  sought  to  ensure  that the  proposal was  not  detrimental to neighbouring  properties  and  that the  roof  height  would  not  read  as  being higher than  its neighbours when  viewed  within the  street  scene.   

70.18

Councillor Simson  spoke  in  her  capacity  as  a  Local Ward Councillor  in  support  of  the  application.  She stated  that it  was rare  for  her  to  support  a  proposal  which  ran  contrary to  Officers’ recommendations. However,  in  this  instance she  did  not  consider  that the  development would  be too bulky  or  detrimental to  the  street  scene. She  considered  that it  needed  to  be  considered within  the  context  of  the  Ridgeway  itself  where  there  was  no  uniformity  of  building  styles  and  infill development  had  taken  place. A  number  of  bungalows  had  been  converted  into  two  storey  dwellings and  this  did  not  appear  to  be  at  variance  with  them.  The  applicant  had  sought to  address the  previous  grounds  for  refusal  and  to  respect  the  amenity  of  its  neighbours,  both  of  whom supported  the  application.  She considered it was acceptable and should be supported.

70.19

The  Planning  Officer  explained that one  of the  nearby  properties referred  to by  the  applicant’s  agent was  currently the  subject  of  a  complaint which  could result  in  enforcement  action  being  taken. The  Development  Control  Manager  stated  that each  application had to  be  assessed on  its  individual  merits,  whether  dealt  with  under  delegated  authority  or determined  by  the  Committee.  

70.20

Councillors  Norman  and Wels stated  that they  considered  the  design  and  height of  the  proposed  development  to  be  acceptable and mirrored the  height  and elevational levels  of  other  similar conversions nearby.  There  were  a  number  of  taller  properties  in  The Ridgeway  flanked  by  bungalows and  in  their  view  this  was  no  different  from  any  of  them.  They  considered  the  application to  be  acceptable  and  that permission  should  be  granted. 

70.21

A  vote  was  taken  and  on  a  vote  of  6  to  3  with  3  abstentions planning  permission  was granted on  the  grounds set  out  below.  Councillor  Carden  queried  the  outcome  of  the  first  recorded  vote .  a  second  vote  was  therefore  taken  and  agreed  upon  by  Members  and  it  is  the  outcome  of  that vote  which  is  set  out  below.

70.22

 RESOLVED -  That  the  Committee  resolves  to  grant  planning  permission subject to the following conditions.

1. standard time condition
2. materials to match existing

Reason:  the proposed development would not have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the streetscene and makes a positive contribution to its visual amenity.

[ Note 1 :  A  vote  was  taken  and  on  a vote  of  6  to  3  with  3  abstentions Members  voted  that planning  permission  be granted  on  the  grounds  set  out  above]. 

[Note 2: Councillor Wells proposed that planning permission be grated.  This was seconded by Councillor Norman.  A recorded vote was then taken. Councillors  Hyde(the  Chairman),  Cobb,  K  Norman,  Smart,  Pidgeon  and  wells voted  that planning  permission  be  granted.  Councillors Carden, Davey and Kennedy voted that planning permission be refused.   Councillors Hamilton, Hawkes and Steedman abstained.  Therefore  on  a  vote  of  6  to  3  with  3  abstentions planning  permission  was  granted  on  the  grounds  set  out ].

(iv) OTHER APPLICATIONS

70.23

Application BH2008/00565, Stanmer Park Access Road (off A270 Lewes Road) – 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).  

70.24

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

70.25

The Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation relative to the proposals.

70.26

Mr  Gapper spoke  on  behalf of neighbours  and  residents  of   Stanmer Village  who  had raised  objections to  the  scheme.  It  was  considered  that the  proposal would  result  in  a  significant  increase  in the  number  of  vehicles  driving  though the  park  to  access  the  university and the  football  stadium  on  match  days  to  the  detriment  of  other  users.  Conflicting  movements  by  cyclists ,  pedestrians  and  other  vehicular  traffic  would  result  in  a  greater  risk of  injury  accidents,  given  that  there  would  be  blind  corners  and the  separation  of  the  different  users  would  not  be  clearly  delineated . There  would  be  traffic  build  up ,  tail  backs  and  congestion  adjacent  to  the  lodges  and   removal  /  cutting  back  of vegetation would  result  in  loss  of  amenity and  privacy to  the  residential  dwellings .

70.27

Mr Perry spoke representing the applicant in support of their application.  He  explained that  the  proposal  was  a  vital link  in  a  series  of  measures  to  facilitate  implementation  of  the  community football  stadium  at  Falmer . The  existing  access  road  to  the  university  would  be  closed  and  this  would  then  be  the  main  access  /  egress  route,  and  would  be  brought  up  to an adoptable standard which  would  be  safe  for  use by an  increased  volume  of  traffic.  

70.28

Councillor  Smart  expressed  concern  regarding  an  increased  number  of  traffic  movements at weekends when  use  of  the  park  was  likely  to  be  at  its  greatest.  The Highway Authority Officer explained  that at  those  times  and  on  other  occasions  when  football  matches  were  being  played,  the  Club’s  traffic  management plan  would  be enforced and stewarding  arrangements  would  be  in  place. 

70.29

Councillors Cobb, Davey  and Steedman  expressed  concern that  the  crossing  point  would  be delineated  by  dropped  kerbs  alone. The  applicant  explained  that  all  of  thee  traffic  management  measures  requested  by  the  Council  had  been  included  in  the  application.  Councillor  Davey  queried  whether  given  the  level  of  bicycle  use  by  those  at the  University  whether “Sustrans”  had  been consulted.  The  Highway Authority Officer explained  that “Sustrans were part of the working group”.         

70.30

Councillor  wells  was  in  agreement  that it  was  appropriate  to  close  the  existing  access  road  into  the  university   which  resulted  in  the  need  for  traffic  to  approach from  a  fast  moving  lane  via  a  blind  bend.  He considered  however  that  a  suitable road surface would   need  to  be  provided  and  that the  amenity of   those  dwelling  in  the  lodges  should  be  protected.   

70.31

Councillor  Kennedy  stated  that  whilst  she supported  the  Falmer  location  of  the  football  stadium and   whilst  also not  wanting  a proliferation  of  urban  street  signage  within  the  park  she  considered  that a  greater  degree  of  separation  was  needed between  pedestrians, cyclists and  other  vehicular  traffic. 

70.32 

Councillor  Norman  stated  that he  considered  that the  proposals were  acceptable and  had  regard  to  measures  which  needed  to  be  in  place  when  the  road was  likely  to  be  at its  most  heavily  trafficked. Councillor Smart concurred.  Councillor  Hamilton considered  that the  increase  in   traffic overall was  not  such  that the  improved  road network  would  be  unable  to  support  it. In  answer  to  further  questions the Highway Authority Officer explained  how  the  proposed  network dovetailed  with  other  traffic  management  proposals  intended  relative  to   the  wider  (and  separate)  scheme .   

70.33

A  vote  was  taken  and  on  a  vote  of  7  to  4  with  1 abstention planning  permission  was  granted  in  the  terns  set  out below .

70.34

RESOLVED -  That  the  Committee  has  taken into  consideration  and agrees  with the  reasons for  recommendations set  out  in Paragraph  8 of  the  report  and resolves  that it  is  minded  to  grant planning  permission subject  to  the  submission of  satisfactory details  regarding  the  design  subject to  the  submission  of a satisfactory details regarding  the  design  of  the  proposed access road, surface  water disposal,  works  upon the  Lower  Lodges listed  buildings  and  measures  to  ensure  availability  of  the  footpath  and  cycleway for the  duration  of  the  works  and  subject to  the  Conditions  and  Informatives  set  out  in  the report, 

70.35

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)   

70.36

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

70.37

The  Planning  Officer gave  a  detailed  presentation  and explained  that notwithstanding  that the  previous  application  had  been  granted  contrary  to  Officers’  recommendations the  current  scheme which  sought  to  remove  four parking  spaces, which were identified as visitor spaces  was still  considered to  be  unacceptable  on  the  grounds set  out  and refusal  was therefore  recommended .

70.38

Mr  Carter spoke  on  behalf  of  the  applicant  in  support  of their application . He  explained that the  proposed use  would  generate far fewer traffic  movements than  arose  from  the  existing  use .  it  was  considered  the  development had  been  well  designed and  was  not  at  variance  with  the  surrounding  conservation  area   notwithstanding  that  it  would  not be  visible  from outside the  site  itself . In  answer  to  questions  he explained  which  elements  of  the neighbouring  site  were  in  the  applicant’s  ownership  and  which  were  not . Removal  of  four  parking  spaces  was  required  in  order  to  enable  the  neighbouring  premises  (fronting  the  High Street)  to  be  extended  by  the  applicant  to provide  a  restaurant  with  accommodation  above. This would form the subject of a separate application.    

70.39

 Mr  Pennington ,  Brighton  &  Hove  Federation  of  Disabled  People  enquired  regarding  the  manner  in  which  bathrooms  would  be  configured  within  the  development and whether   the  units  would  be  fully  wheelchair  accessible.  The  Planning  Officer  explained  that the  submitted  plans  did  not  include  details   of  the  intended  internal  layout,  although  these  rooms  appeared  to  be  very  small. 

70.40

Councillor  Steedman queried  the  fact  that following  the  previous  application details of sustainability  measures  and relating  to  demolition  and  construction  waste  minimisation  had  not  been  included.  Mr  Carter  explained  that these  details  could  be  provided  if  requested  and  measures taken  to  ensure  that a  very  good  BREEAM /  Ecohomes rating  would  be  achieved  as  a  minimum.

70.41 

Councillor  Steedman  also  enquired  why  two  separate  applications  were  to be  submitted.  It  was explained  that  the  scheme  relating  to  the  proposed restaurant had not been worked up at  the  time  the  previous  application  had  been  made.  

70.42

Councillor  Kennedy  stated  that   she  was of  the  view  that the  submitted  drawings  were  poor, lacked  detail and  the  development was  not  of  a  design  appropriate  to  its  proposed  location. Notwithstanding  that  the  recommendation  for  refusal  had  been  overturned  relative to  the  previous  application;  she  considered  that this  application  should  be  refused  in  accordance  with  the  Officers’  recommendations.

70.43

Mr  Small  (CAG)  stated  that  although  the  Group’s  comments  had  not  been  included,  they  had  been  submitted  with  the  earlier  report.  CAG  remained  of  the  view  that   the  application should  be  refused   on  the  grounds  of  its  design  and  location within a  conservation  area.  In  his  view  none  of  the  Group’s  previous  objections had  been  overcome 

70.44

Councillor  Hamilton  stated  that as  the  extant  permission  was  already  in  place  it  could  be  built  as per that permission.  As the  only  element  of  difference related  to  the  removal   of  four  car  parking  spaces  it  was  on  that  basis  that the  application  needed  to  be  considered. In  his  view  the  four  visitor  should  be  retained   as they  formed  an  integral  part  of the  scheme.  He concurred with  the  views  submitted  by Rottingdean  Parish Council set out  in  the  report.

70.45

Councillor  Wells  stated  that he  considered  the  proposal  to  be  acceptable  as  Rottingdean  was  of  high  density  and  the  development  would  be  no  more  closely  spaced with  its  neighbours  than  properties  elsewhere  in  the  village. As  there  was  a public  car  park  nearby  he  did  not  consider  the  loss  of four  parking  spaces  to  be  significant .

70.46

A  vote  was  taken  and  on  a  vote  of  7  to  3  with  2  abstentions  planning  permission was refused  on  the  grounds  set  out  below. 

70.47

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

 (1) The  proposed  development,  by  reason of design,  layout,  excessive scale,  limited  separation to  boundaries  and  between terraces,  dominance of  vehicle manoeuvring  area  and  garage  doors,  and  lack of  landscaping  would  be  prominent  over development of  a  poor  design  that would  have  a  detrimental relationship with  and  be  out  of  character with  surrounding development and  the  Rottingdean Conservation  Area .  The  proposal is therefore  considered to  be  contrary to  Brighton &  Hover  Local  Plan  policies,  QD1,  QD2,  Qd3,  QD15,  H04 and  HE6;

(2)  the  proposed  development would  result  in  extensive  overlooking  between  the  two terraces,  and  the end  houses would  be  exposed to  overlooking  from  users  of  the  neighbouring  school  property,  which  is  elevated  above  the  application  site  level. The  small  rear gardens would  not  provide adequate  usable  amenity  space for  future  occupiers,  and  the  high boundary  walls  and limited separation  between  the  terraces  would  result  in  an  overall sense of  enclosure.  The  proposed development would  therefore  provide  poor  living  conditions  for  future occupiers,  contrary to  Brighton &  Hove  Local  Plan  policies  QD£,  QD27,  HO4 and  HO5;

(3)   The  proposed  development  would  result  in  the  loss  of  an  existing  commercial  site,  which  in  the  absence  of  demonstration  to  the  contrary , is  considered  suitable  for  continued employment  use . The  loss of  this  commercial  use  would  be  detrimental  to  employment  and  economic opportunities ,  contrary  to  Brighton  &  Hove  Local  Plan  policy  EM3;   

(4) The  proposed  development  would  result  in  enclosure  and  overlooking of  No  56  High  Street,  causing detriment  to  the  living  conditions of  that  residential  property,  contrary  to Brighton &  Hove  Local  Plan policy  QD27 ; 

(5)  The  proposed  development ,  by  reason of  excessive  height  and  scale  and  unsympathetic  design, would  be  overbearing  on  the  neighbouring  Grade  II listed  buildings and would  therefore  be  detrimental  to  the  setting  of  these  listed  buildings,  contrary  to  Brighton &  Hove Local Plan policies  QD,  QD2   and  HE3 ;

(6) The  applicant  has  failed  to  submit any  information with  respect  to   achieving  a  minimum of  very good  BREEAM/Ecohomes rating  or  equivalent  and  as  such  the proposed development would  therefore  fail  to   meet  the  minimum  requirements  of  Brighton  &  Hove  Local Plan  policy SU2  and  demonstration  of  efficiency in the  use  of water,  energy  and  materials, and SPGHB Note  16  :  Renewable  Energy  and  Energy  Efficiency  Developments ;

(7)  The  proposed  development  has  failed  to  provide  adequate  detail  of  demolition and  construction  waste minimisation  measures,  contrary  to  Brighton  &  Hove  Local  Plan  policy  SU13 and  RG P -  W5 ;  and

(8)   The  application  excludes  parcels  of  land that appear  to  be  part  of  the   overall  site  and,  in  the  absence  of justification to  the  contrary,  it  appears that this  has  been  done to  circumvent policies  and  requirements  related to  the  provision of  affordable  housing,  and  contributions  towards  educational facilities and the  recreational open space contrary to  Brighton  &  Hove  Local  Plan  policies HO2 andQD28 and  Draft  Supplementary Planning  Guidance Note  9  “A  Guide for  Developers  on  the  Provision Of  Recreational  Space”.

Informatives :

1.  This  decision  is  based  on  the  unnumbered plans  of  existing  floor layout  and  elevations,  block plan  showing proposed site  layout,  floor  plans and elevations  submitted  on  20  December  2007.

70.48

Application BH2008/01574, Hove  Rugby Club, Recreation Ground,  Shirley  Drive, Hove – Extensions to clubhouse to  provide additional  changing rooms,  new  clubroom  and  entrance  porch,

70.49

 The Senior Planning Officer  gave  a  presentation explaining that confirmation had  been  obtained  from  the  applicants  relative to  the  actual size  of  the  hard  standing  around  the  clubhouse  and revised  plans had  been  submitted  reflecting  this. Reference  was  also  made  to   further late  objections  and  photographs  from Councillors Bennett  and Brown relative  to  illegal parking  of  taxis  and  private  cars  believed to  be  associated with  events taking  place  at   the  Rugby   Club.   

70.50

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

70.51

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. 

70.52

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

70.53

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

70.54

The  Senior  Planning Officer  gave  a  presentation setting  out  the  proposals  in  detail .  The  main  concern  related  to  loss  of  aspect to  one  window of  the  neighbouring  property  at no  20.  This was not however of such significance to warrant refusal.  

70.55

Councillor  Steedman  stated  that   should  permission  be  granted  it  would  be  appropriate  for  a green  roof  to  be  provided  of materials  which  would  support  biodiversity 

70.56

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 . 

70.57

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  Conditions  and  Informatives  set  out  in  the  report and to the following amendment/additions.

Condition 5:  Amend the word “sedum” to “green”

Add a new condition: 

No development shall take place until details of the green roof have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The approved scheme shall be implemented as part of the development  and shall be retained as such thereafter.   Reason: To ensure that the development is sustainable and makes efficient use of energy, water and materials and in accordance with policies S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and SU2 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

 Add an informative:

Green or Biodiverse roofs: Support biodiverse vegetation and are designed to support species-rich habitats such as chalk grassland. Brown Roofs use recycled rubble to support specialist plant communities. For more information see www.livingroofs.org.

70.58

Application  BH2008/01813,  20  Tivoli  Crescent,  Brighton – partial  change  of  use  from  residential basement (C3) to  community use  (D1) to  allow  x4 weekly  pre- school music  classes (retrospective).  

70.59

The Senior Planning Officer gave a presentation detailing the proposals and setting out the reasons for the recommendation. 

70.60

Councillor  Smart  sought  clarification  regarding  configuration  of  the  site,  and  that  the  property  dropped down  to  basement  level at the  rear.  Councillors  Norman  and Wells  whilst  supporting  the  use  in  principle   had  concerns  regarding  the  need  to  ensure  health  and  safety  requirements  relative  to  the  ratio /  number  of  adults  and  children  on  site  when  the  basement  was  used  for  music  classes.   

70.61

 Councillor  Hawkes  considered  that  it  was  important  that  adequate  toilet  facilities  were  provided and  that  this  resource  complied  with  similar  standards  to  those  to  be  met  elsewhere  across  the  City for  example   at  the  Council’s  own  events  run  in  libraries  etc.  councillor  Hawkes  was  also  of  the  view  that  it was  important for  the  relevant  Officers of  the  Council  to  be  made  aware  of  this  resource  which  would  also  enable  information  regarding  this  facility  to  be  included  on  their  data base.   

70.62

The  Development  Control  Manager explained  that matters  relative  to  health  and  safety  requirements   were  not  a  planning consideration  but  that  an  informative  could  be  added  to  any  planning  permission granted.  She  also  agreed to write  to  the  relevant  department/  officers  of  the  Council  on  the  Committees’ behalf   making  them  aware  of  this  resource .  Councillor   Cobb expressed  concern regarding  noise  levels  generated  by  the  use,  which  although  faint  and  intermittent  appeared  to  be  impacting  adversely  on  neighbouring  residents .      

70.63

Councillors  Carden ,  Kennedy  and  Smart  expressed  their  support  for  the  proposal .

70.64

A  vote  was  taken  and  on  a  vote  of  7  to  1  with  2 abstentions  planning  permission  was granted.

70.65

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.

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

70.66

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].