Agenda item - BH2011/03765 - 19-27 Carlton Terrace

Demolition of existing buildings and erection of new 3no.storey block of 41 retirement apartments with communal facilities, car parking and landscaping works, erection of new 2no. storey block of 4no. affordable apartments with car parking and landscaping and associated works.

Recommendation – REFUSE

(i)         Major Applications

A.        BH2011/03765 – 19-27 Carlton Terrace,Portslade

(1)       Demolition of existing buildings and erection of new 3 no storey block of 41 retirement apartments with communal facilities, car parking and landscaping works, erection of new 2no.storey block of 4no. affordable apartments with car parking and landscaping and associated works.

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

(3)       The Planning Officer Jason Hawkes gave a presentation detailing the proposed scheme by reference to photographs and drawings. He explained that the current scheme was for a much larger development than the existing outline consent for 15 units. Its bulk and scale would be significantly greater. The proposal could be divided into two distinct sections, these were detailed. The scale of the main three storey building, due to its bulk, extensive site coverage and limited open space, would be an overdevelopment of the site, and an over dominant  feature in contrast to the character and context of the surrounding area. Whilst it was felt that the plot width and roof height of the Carlton Terrace elevation was acceptable and in line with the rest of the street there were however concerns that the front elevation was inappropriate partly due to the inclusion of a set back balcony area. This set back reduced the size of the roofs and gave the buildings a three storey appearance with a higher eaves height than the adjacent buildings. The set back at second floor level was not seen in any other adjacent buildings on the street which are mainly traditional two-storey Victorian houses with gabled and pitched roofs. The scheme also proposed a building line which came forward of the building line of the adjacent buildings to the immediate north and south.  The proposed front elevation was 2.1m further forward than the front building line of no.18 Carlton Terrace. This along with the elongated appearance and set back at second floor level would result in a front elevation which would have an inappropriate visual impact in the context of the rest of the street scene.

(4)       Whilst the loss of the industrial use was deemed appropriate and the use of the site for residential purposes was acceptable in principle the proposal for 45 retirement flats was deemed contrary to the Local Plan and NPPF as it did not propose good design represented an inappropriate form of development out of context with its surroundings, did not promote sustainable transport, or provide an adequate provision of affordable housing or propose suitable measures to mitigate the impact of the proposal on the surrounding area. For those reasons the application was recommended for refusal.

            Questions of Officers, Debate and Decision Making

(5)       Councillor Mrs Theobald queried the level of affordable housing being sought as she thought that that a level of up to 40% was required. Mr Hawkes explained that the level of affordable housing was negotiable provided that a scheme was considered to be acceptable in all other respects. The level of affordable housing proposed by the previous scheme had been 26.6% for a development comprising 15 units; this scheme was of a far higher density and the applicants had not made a robust case to demonstrate that was so.

(6)       Councillor Randall sought to ascertain how far below the lifetime homes standard the development fell and it was explained that had the form of development proposed been considered acceptable these matters could have been secured by condition. In his view whilst the site was an ideal location for this type of housing this scheme was not.

(7)       Councillor A Norman enquired whether the applicants had been made aware of officers concerns regarding the proposed scale of this development which was far higher than that previously put forward. It was concerned that the height of some elements of the site and overall density was far greater than that of the previous scheme.

(8)       Councillor Mrs Theobald stated that it was unfortunate no representatives were present on behalf of the applicants to respond to questions from members. She considered that the scheme was a bulky overdevelopment and concurred with the officers recommendations as did Councillor Hyde.

(9)       Councillor Cobb stated that although she was not unduly concerned by the low level of affordable housing she considered that this scheme was too bulky and not in keeping with the area. She was also concerned that the development went right up to the site boundary.

(10)     Councillor Hamilton stated that the existing site was an eyesore which was ideally suited to this type of development. He hoped that the developer would come back with a scheme addressing the issues raised as he remained to be convinced that a better alternative use could be found for the site.

(11)     Councillor Hawtree stated that the current scheme represented a very poor form of development which looked as if it had “landed” on the site and was not appropriate to it.

(10)     Councillor Summers agreed with the officers recommendations concurring with the reasons for refusal cited.

(12)     A vote was taken and planning permission was refused on a vote of 10 with 2 abstentions.

187.1    RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in this report and resolves to REFUSE planning permission for the following reasons:

1. The scale of the main three-storey building, due to its bulk extensive coverage of the site and limited open space would appear as an overdevelopment of the site and an over dominant feature in contrast to the character and context of the surrounding area. Additionally, the proposal results in a front elevation which is significantly further forward than the existing adjacent building line on Carlton Terrace. This coupled with the design of the front elevation with the design of the front elevation with a second floor set back and three storey appearance would make the front elevation dominate the street scene and is considered to represent inappropriate development which poorly relates to the character and appearance of the street scene. For these reasons the development is contrary to policies QD1, QD2, QD3, H4 and HO6 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan which seek to ensure that new developments emphasise and enhance the positive qualities of the local neighbourhood.
2. The proposed development by reason of its height, scale, excessive footprint, fenestration detailing and positioning would result in an unneighbourly development and lead to a sense of enclosure, increased overlooking and perceived overlooking to neighbouring properties to the detriment of the living conditions of occupiers. The proposal would therefore be contrary to planning policies QD1, QD2 and QD27 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.
3. The proposal includes 4 affordable housing units out of 45 units which equates to an 8.9% element of affordable housing. Policy H02 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan requires a 40% element in schemes of 1 or more dwellings. The applicant has failed to provide a robust and comprehensive justification for a significantly low level of affordable housing. The scheme is therefore considered contrary to the above policy.
4. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the impact of the development will be significantly mitigated in matters directly related to planning by means of planning obligations as outlined in policy QD28 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan. These matters relate to the impact of the development in terms of policy TR1, that requires development proposals to provide for the demand for travel they create, policy HO6 that states that new development will not be permitted unless the requirement for outdoor recreation space is suitably provided, policy QD6, which requires development to provide new public art in major development schemes and the requirement of the scheme to contribute towards local employment and training schemes. The scheme is therefore considered contrary to the above policies of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

Informatives:

1. This decision is based on the Statement of Community Involvement , Planning Statement, Embodied CO2 Estimator Sheet, Affordable Housing Statement, Energy/Sustainability Statement, Design, Access and Sustainability Statement, Refuse and Waste Minimisation and Management Plan, Utilities Statement, Sustainability Checklist, Drainage Survey, Traffic and Transport Consultation, Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey, Site Investigation Report, Viability Assessment and Review, Validation Statement, Assessment of Potential Noise Impact, Biodiversity Checklist Statement, Assessment of Potential Noise Impact, Biodiversity Checklist and drawing nos.10-1769-100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, MCS441/Drg01A, PP/2813/M&S/201/A, B2452-02, 03 & 04 received on 9 December 2011 and 16 February 2012.