Agenda item - Application BH2011/03432, Blocks E F Kingsmere, Brighton

Roof extension to Blocks E and F to provide 8no flats each with own private roof garden.

(1)          The Area Planning Manager (West) gave a presentation detailing the scheme by reference to plans, elevational drawings and photographs. The application related to the eastern side of London Road and blocks E & F of Kingsmere. Planning permission had been granted in 2010 for an extension to the roof containing 4 units each with 3 bedrooms. This application sought consent for an additional storey of the same footprint, but instead for 8 units with a mixture of 1 & 2 bedrooms each with their own outside space. Members’ attention was drawn to a letter of representation received from Councillor Ann Norman and Councillor Ken Norman in objection to the scheme. The application required a contribution to sustainable transport of £6,000. The application was recommended for approval for the reasons set out in the report.

              Questions for Officers, Debate and Decision Making Process

(2)          In response to a query from Councillor Carol Theobald it was explained that the units would not be of the same configuration as those on the floor below; measures in relation to sound proofing would fall under the remit of Building Control.

(3)          Mr Chris Kift asked questions in relation to Lifetime Homes and access and adaptability for people with disabilities and mobility problems. In response it was explained that the Life Time Homes standards had been considered by the applicant, but not all had been met; however the work could not commence until the applicant had taken account of all Life Time Homes standards.

(4)          In response to a query from Councillor Cobb it was explained that the provision of cycle parking was dealt with by condition 8 in the report.

(5)          The Area Planning Manager (West) confirmed the differences in layout between the previous consent, and the new proposals.

(6)                   Councillor Carol Theobald stated that most of the objections were from residents of Kingsmere, and she raised concerns in relation to the potential noise impact, the increased numbers of units and the size. She stated that she would be voting against the Officer recommendation.

(7)                   Councillor Rufus noted his objection to the size of the units, and felt that the living conditions would be reduced. He stated that he would be voting against the Officer recommendation.

(8)                   The Area Planning Manager (West) stated the sizes of the proposed units, and went on to add that the Council had a minimum size of units for affordable homes, but not for private homes.

(9)                   Councillor Simson noted her objections to the scheme; stating that she did consider it well thought out.

(10)               Councillor Farrow noted his concern that the Council did not have a policy in relation to a minimum size of units, and he did not feel the units would be sufficient for people with disabilities.

(11)               A vote was taken and, of the 12 Members present, planning permission was refused on a vote of 8 to 3 with 1 abstention. Councillor Carol Theobald proposed reasons that planning be refused, and this was seconded by Councillor Simson; a short recess was then held to allow the Chair, Councillor Carol Theobald and Councillor Simson to agree the reasons for refusal in full, in consultation with the Head of Development Control and the Senior Lawyer. A recorded vote was then taken and, of the 12 Members present, planning permission was refused on a vote of 8 to 3 with 1 abstention for the reasons set out below.    

157.8    RESOLVED - That the Committee has taken into consideration the recommendation but resolves to REFUSE planning permission for the reasons set out below.

1.  The proposed development by reason of its configuration and increase in the number of residential units would result in a scheme having an adverse impact on the amenities of the existing and future occupants by reason of noise and disturbance and the cramped nature of the new units, contrary to policies HO4 and QD27 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan 2005

2. The proposed development fails to provide any car parking. This is likely to lead to an increase in parking pressure on the surrounding highway network contrary to policy TR1 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan 2005

3.      The proposed development provides insufficient usable private amenity space reflective of the scale and character of the development contrary to policy HO5 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan 2005.

Note 1: A vote was taken and on a vote of 8 to 3 with 1 abstention planning permission was refused.

Note 2: Councillor Carol Theobald proposed reasons for refusal of planning permission (set out above) and these were seconded by Councillor Simson. A recorded vote was then taken. Councillors Cobb, Rufus and Farrow voted that planning permission be granted. Councillors, Bowden, Carden, Hamilton, Hawtree, MacCafferty Simson, Summers and Carol Theobald voted that planning permission be refused. Councillor Hyde abstained. Therefore on a vote of 8 to 3 with 1 abstention planning permission was refused.