Agenda item - To consider and determine planning applications on the plans list dated 22 October 2008

(copy circulated separately).

118 .  PLANS  LIST  APPLICATIONS,  22  OCTOBER  2008

 

(i) TREES

 

118.1 RESOLVED -  That  the Committee  has  taken  into  consideration and agrees  with  the  reasons for  the  recommendation  set  out in Paragraph 7  and  resolves  to  refuse  consent  to  fell  the  trees  which  form  the  subject  of  the following  application subject  to  the  conditions set  out  in  the report :      

 

BH2008/02703,  Mill  House ,  Overhill  Drive ,  Patcham

 

(ii) SUBSTANTIAL  OR  CONTROVERSIAL  APPLICATIONS  OR  APPLICATIONS  DEPARTING  FROM  COUNCIL  POLICY  :  22 OCTOBER  2008 

 

118.2 There  were  none.

 

(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  22  OCTOBER  2008  

 

118.3 ApplicationBH2008/ 01953, 1 -  2  Regent Street,  Brighton -  Demolition  of existing  2  storey building and erection  of  4  storey  building  with  replacement of  retail on  the  ground  floor  and  5  flats above.

 

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

 

118.5 The  Area  Planning Manager (East) gave a presentation  detailing  the  scheme including  by  reference  to  plans  and elevational  drawings explaining  that the  principle  of  demolishing the  existing  building  was considered  acceptable,  that  there  were  no  objections on  traffic grounds and  that although  small  the  level  of  amenity space  was considered  acceptable  given the  city  centre  location  of  the  development .

 

118.6 Councillor  Kemble  sought  confirmation regarding  whether  the existing  retail  unit  would  be  retained  and  it  was  explained  that the  existing  level  of  retail  floor  space  would  be  retained  although  not  necessarily  for  the  same  use.    

 

118.7 Councillor  Davey  enquired whether shutters were  to be  provided  to units  on the  upper  floors  as this  feature appeared  to  be  shown  in  the  submitted  drawings.  It  was  explained  that  it  was  not  intended  to  provide  shutters.

 

118.8 Mr  Small  (CAG) enquired regarding  the   proposed retail  use  at first  floor  level  and it  was explained  that  this  was regarded differently  from  that located  at  ground  floor  level  for  the  purposes  of  planning  policy..  Mr  Small also  reiterated  the  objections made  by  CAG  that the  proposed design  was  not  considered  to  be  of  sufficient  quality  to  justify  loss  of  the  existing  building . It was noted that the North Laine Community Association  had  lodged similar objections.

 

118.9 Councillor  Smart asked  whether  consideration  had  been given to  providing a  lift  within  the  development. The  area  Planning  Manager  (East)  explained  that there  was  no  planning  policy  basis for requiring  a  lift  to  be  provided  within  the  development . Councillor Smart also  expressed the  view that the  lack  of  parking  was unacceptable .  Councillor  Mrs Theobald concurred in  that view  stating  that  she  considered it  regrettable  that  a  lift  was  not  proposed  within  the  development.

 

118.10   Councillors  Kennedy  and  Steedman  concurred  with  the  views  expressed  by  CAG  considering  that the   proposed  design of  the  development  was  poor  considering  the  prominent  site  which  it  would  occupy and  that it  would adversely  impact  on  the  character  and  appearance  of  the  surrounding  North Laine Conservation Area.  Councillor  McCaffery also concurred  in  that view . Councillor  Mrs Theobald  enquired whether  it  would be  possible  to  defer  consideration  of  the application  in  order  to  require   the  applicant  to  effect  improvements  to  the  design.

 

118.11 The  Deputy Development Control Manager stated that  significant  changes had  been  made  to  the scheme  as originally  submitted  and  that Members  needed  to  determine  the  application as  submitted.

 

118.12 Councillor   Carden  stated  that he  considered   the  scheme  to  be  acceptable .

 

118.13  A vote  was  taken  and  on  a  vote  of   7  to  4  with  1  abstention planning  permission  was  refused  on  the  grounds  set  out  below.

 

118.14 RESOLVED -  That  the  proposed  development, by virtue  of  its  quality of design,  would be  unacceptable  and would adversely  impact  upon the  character  and appearance  of  the  North  Laine Conservation  Area,  and would  be  contrary   to  policies  Qd1,  QD2 and HE6  of  the  Brighton  &  Hove  Local  Plan.

 

[Note 1 : A  vote  was  taken  and  on  a  vote  of  7  to  4  with  1  abstention planning  permission  was  refused ]. 

 

[Note 2 :  A  recorded  vote  was  taken.  Councillor  Kennedy proposed  that planning  permission  be  refused  on  the  grounds  set  out  above. This was  seconded  by  Councillor  Steedman. Councillors  Hyde  (Chairman), Davey,  Kennedy, Kemble, McCaffery,  Smart  and  Steedman voted that planning  permission  be  refused .  councillors  Barnett,  Carden  ,  Hamilton and  wells  voted  that planning  permission  be  granted.  Councillor  Mrs  theobald  abstained .  Therefore  on  a  vote  of  7  to  b4  with  1  abstention  planning  permission  was  refused].

 

118.15 Application  BH2008//02702,  41 -  45  St .  James’  Street ,  Brighton  -   Variation of  condition 6  attached  to BH1997/ 00792/fp,  to  sallow  opening  hours  in  accordance with  the premises  licence  and  operating   schedule .

 

118.16   The  Area Planning  Manager (East) gave a  presentation  explaining  that the  applicant  had requested  to  be  permitted  to  vary  the their planning  permission  it  into  line  with  the  conditions  under  their  premises  licence .  He  explained  that when  granting  a   premises  licence  a licensing  Panel  needed  to  have  regard  to   he  licensing  objectives  and to  the  need  to   seek  to avoid  public  order  or  noise  nuisance  offences  from  occurring  .  The Planning  Committee  could  have  regard  to  planning  issues  such  as  protection  of  neighbouring  amenity .

 

118.17  Mr  Nicoll spoke  on  behalf  of neighbouring  objectors  living  above  the  premises  stating that the  opening  hours  granted  under  the original  permission  had  been   imposed  in  order  to  protect   the  amenity  of neighbours  and to  seek  to  ensure  that they  did  not  suffer  from  an  unacceptable  level  of disturbance  late  at  night.  These issues remained  important, in  particular the need  for  mitigate  against residents being  disturbed  by  those leaving  the  premises  late  at night.

 

118.18  Mr  Radke the  applicant  spoke  in  support  of  his  application  stating  that since  he  had  taken  over  occupation  of  the  premises it  had  been  well  run  and  its  existence  had  been  instrumental  in  discouraging  drug  dealing  and  other  anti-  social  behaviour   which had  previously  taken  place in  the  immediate  area. There  had  only  been two  complaints  regarding  noise  which  had  been responded  to  immediately,  as a  result  noise  inhibiting  equipment  had been installed to  prevent  any  further  nuisance  from  occurring . Other premises close by were permitted to stay  open for  longer and  he wanted  parity  with  them.  The  intention  was  not  to  stay  open  longer  every  evening but  to  have  the  flexibility  to  do  so.

 

118.19  Councillor  Davey  asked whether the  premises  had  been  staying  open  later  and  it  was confirmed  that having  been  unaware  of  the need to  apply  for  a  variation  to  the  extant  planning  permission  the  premises  had  been  open until  a  later  hour  in  line  with  the  conditions  of  the  premises  licence .

 

118.20  Councillors  Barnett   and  Mrs  Theobald  considered  that  it   appeared  that the premises  were  well run (evidenced  by  the  very  low  number  of complaints) ,  whilst acknowledging acknowledging for  those   leaving  the  premises  late  at  night  to  disperse  immediately  and quietly.  In  answer  to  questions  of Councillor  Mrs  Theobald regarding  arrangements  for  those  wishing  to  smoke  it  was explained  that  patrons  did  so  on  the  pavement  outside.  

 

118.21  In  answer  to  questions  of  Councillors  Wells and  Barnett  it  was explained  that it  was  understood  that  the  public  house  directly  opposite  the  premises   had permitted  opening  hours  until  2.00am. Councillor  Wells   stated  that it  appeared  that the  applicant  had made  every  endeavour  to  ensure  that  his business  as  a  restaurant  ,  café  ,  bar  did  not  give rise  to  any  nuisance ,  he  did  not  consider  the  request  made  to  be  unreasonable.  Councillor  Kemble  stated  that he  was  familiar with  the  area  ands  not  aware  of any   nuisance  emanating from  the  premises, he  considered   the  request  to  be  acceptable.  Councillors Davey  and  Steedman considered that it  would  be  appropriate to  grant  a temporary  licence  which would   be  subject  to  review  and would  then come  back to  the Committee  for  re determination. Councillor  Carden concurred  with  the  Officers’  recommendation stating  that nuisance  and  disturbance often arose  when  individuals  left premises .                               

      

118.22 Members  discussed  whether  or  not  they were  minded  to  grant  a  licence  for  a  temporary  period  of  six  or  twelve  months and  agreed   that they  considered  it  appropriate  for  a  temporary  licence  to  be  granted  for  a  period  of  12  months.

 

118.23  a  vote  was  taken and  on a  vote  of  47  to  1 with  4  abstentions  temporary  planning  permission  was  granted  for  a  period  of  12 months  in  the  terms set out  below.

 

118.24  RESOLVED  -   That temporary  permission  be  granted  for  12  months expiring  on  22  October  2009 subject  to  the  following conditions  and  informatives :

 

Conditions

1.  The  premises  shall  not  be  open  or  in  use  except  between   the  following  hours  :-

Mondays  to  Saturdays  (inclusive) :  09.00  hours  to  01.30  hours  the  following  day

Sundays:  09.00 hours  to  23.30  hours

Reason:  to  safeguard the  amenities of  the  locality and  to comply  with  policy  QD27 of  the  Brighton &  hove  Local Plan.

2.  This  permission shall  be  for  a temporary  period  only  and  shall  expire  on  22  October  2009.

Reason :  To  enable  the  Local Planning Authority  to  monitor  the  impact  of  the  increased  opening  hours  on the  amenities  of  the  locality  and to  comply  with  policy  QD27 of  the  Brighton &  Hove  Local Plan.

3.  The outside  terrace  area  at  the front  of  the  premises  shall  b  closed  to  customers  between  22.30 hours  and  10.00  hours  the  following  day.

Reason :  To  safeguard  the  amenities  of  the  locality  and  to  comply  with  policy  Qd27 of  the  Brighton  &  Hove   Local Plan.

Informatives :

1. This decision is based  on  site  plan  no.SK01 ,  an unnumbered  site  plan,  Premises  License  and  a  Statement  submitted  on  13  august  2008,  an  e -  mail  received  on  the  18  august 2008 ,  an  e  -  mail  received  on  8  September  2008  and  a  letter  received  on  12  September  2008. 

2.  This decision to grant  planning  permission  has been taken :

(i) having  regard to  the  policies  and  proposals in  the  Brighton  &  Hove  Local  Plan  set  out  below :

Brighton & Hove  Local Plan:

TR1 Development  and  the  demand  for  travel

QD3 Design -  efficient  and effective  use  of  sites

QD27 Protection of amenity

SU9 Pollution and nuisance control

SU10 Noise nuisance

SR5 Town and  district  shopping  centres

 

Planning Policy  Statements  and Guidance

PPS1 :  Delivering Sustainable  Development 

PPS6 Town Centres

PPG24Planning  and  Noise

 

(ii) for  the  following  reasons  : -

Taking into  account  all material planning  considerations ,  the  proposed  increased  opening  hours  are  considered to  be  acceptable  for  a  temporary  period of  one  year in  respect of  their  impact  on  the  amenities  of  the  locality.

3.  The  applicant  is  advised  that the  remaining  conditions  attached  to  planning permission  BH2007 /00792 / FP  are  extant  and require  to  be  complied  with .

 

[ Note 1 :  A  vote  was  taken  and  o  a  vote  of  7  to  4  with  1  abstention  temporary  planning permission was  granted].

 

[Note  2 :  A  recorded  vote  was taken .  Councillor  Kemble  proposed  that temporary  permission  be  granted  for  1  year this was  seconded  by  Councillor  Wells .councillor s  Barnett Hyde  (Chairman), Davey, Kemble, Smart,  Mrs  Theobald  and Wells voted  that  temporary  permission  be  granted .  Councillor  Carden  voted  that permission  be  refused .  Councillors  Hamilton,  Kennedy,  McCaffery and  Steedman  abstained. Therefore  on  a  vote  of  7  to  I1  with  4  abstentions  temporary  planning  permission  was granted .   

 

(iv) OTHER  APPLICATIONS  

 

118.25  Application  BH2008/00688,  21  Bennett   Drive -  Demolition  of existing  two  storey  detached  house  to  be  replaced  by  a  three  and a half  storey eco house.

 

118 .26  The Deputy  Development  Control  Manager explained that the application  had been  withdrawn at  the  request  of  the  applicant.

 

118.27  RESOLVED  -  That the  position  be  noted .

 

118.28  Application BH2008/01036,  Tudor Cottage,  263 London  Road, Brighton  -  Conservation  Area  Consent  for  proposed  demolition  of  existing  dwelling  and  garage  and erection of  four  storey apartment  building  containing  7  flats.

 

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

 

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

 

118.31  Application BH2008/02440,  Tudor Cottage,  263 London Road,  Brighton -  demolition  of  existing  dwelling  and garage  and  erection of  four – storey apartment  building  containing 7  flats.

 

118.32  members  considered   that it   would  be  appropriate to  carry  out  a  site  visit  prior  to  determining  the  application.

 

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

 

118.34  Application BH2007/04167,  Rear of  20  -  36  Baden  Road, Brighton -  Erection  of  9  terraced  dwellings  (2 x2  bed  houses  and  7  x3  beds). With  vehicular parking  for 9  cars.

 

118.35  The Area Planning Manager (East) gave a presentation  detailing  the scheme  by  reference  to  elevational  drawings and  plans. I answer to  questions  he  explained that only  two  of  the  buildings  three   floors  would  be  visible  from  Bevendean  Road.  Each  of  the  dwellings  would  have  a  small  private  garden area  with  parking  spaces to the front .

 

118.36  Councillor  Mrs Theobald sought  clarification  regarding  the  distances  between  the  proposed development  and the  nearest  neighbouring  dwellings.  Councillor  Mrs  Theobald  also  queried  whether  the  garages  located  in  Baden  Road would  still  be  accessible   once  the  development  had been  completed . It was explained  that these garages would  still  have  access onto  Baden Road itself. As the  area  did  not  fall  within a  Controlled  Parking  Zone ,  it was  not considered that any  additional  traffic  or  on -  street  parking  resulting from  the  scheme  would  create parking  problems within  the  area.

 

118 .37  Councillors  Carden  and  Kennedy  considered  that the  scheme  represented  a  good  use of  the  land  which  would  provide  much  needed family  accommodation.  Councillor  Wells  also  concurred  in  that view.  Councillor  Steedman  supported  the  scheme   but  requested  that an  condition 13 be  amended  to  seek to ensure  that  the  hard standing  surface  provided  was permeable.  The  Committee   was in  agreement .

 

118.39  A  vote  was taken  and  on  a  vote  11  with 1 abstention  planning  permission was granted  in  the  terms set  out  below .  

 

118.40   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 and subject  to  condition 13   and  the  accompanying  reason  being  amended to  include  permeable  hard  surfacing  to  read:

No  development shall  take place until  there has been  submitted to  and  approved  in  writing  by  the  Local  Planning  authority a  scheme  for  landscaping.,  which  shall  include  permeable  hard  surfacing ,  means  of  enclosure,  planting  of  the  development,  indications  of  all  existing  trees and  hedgerows on  the land,  and details  of  any  to  be  retained, together with  measures  for  their  protection in  the  course  of  development  in  the  interest of  the  visual  amenities of  the  area,  makes  efficient use  of  water  and to  accord with  policies  QD15 and SU2 of  the  Brighton  & Hove  Local  Plan.  

 

118.41  Application BH2008/02181,  1 Lustrells  Close , Saltdean  -  Demolition  of  garage  and  side porch and  construction  of  extension  to  side. Formation of  rooms  in  new and existing  roof  space with  dormer windows  to  front  and  rear.  Alterations  to  existing  fenestration  to  front  and rear. Works  to  form a pair  of  semi  detached  single   family  dwellings .

 

118.42 The  Area  Planning Manager (East)  gave  a detaild  presentation  relative  to the  proposed  scheme .

 

118.43 Mr Thomas spoke on behalf of the applicant in support of his application and Mr  Wilson the  applicant also  spoke  in  support of  his application indicating that the  he  had not  initially  been aware of  the  sustainability  measures required. He stated  that  other  plots in  the  locality  had received  similar treatment  and, that he  did  not  consider   his  proposal to  be  out  of  keeping  with the  prevailing  street  scene.

 

118.44 In  answer  to questions of  Councillor  Mrs Theobald  the  Area  planning  Manager (East) explained  that the ridge  height  of  the proposed dwellings  would  be  the  same  as that of  the  neighbouring  dwellings but  that each  would  also  have a two  storey extension  above  .  In  answer to  questions of  Councillor  Smart it  was explained  that although  there  were  some  semi  detached  bungalows  and  houses   in  the  area  there  none  immediately   nearby  the  application  site.

 

118.45 Councillor  Kennedy stated  that she  supported  the  Officers’ recommendation considering  that the  proposals  represented  overdevelopment  and  would  result in  loss  of  amenity to  neighbouring dwellings.  Councillor  Mrs  Theobald  concurred  in  that  view.

 

118.46 Councillors  Kemble,  McCaffery  and  Wells considered  that the  proposals  were  acceptable,  did  not  detract  from  the  surrounding  street and would  provide  additional family  accommodation.

 

118.47  A  vote  was taken  and on  a  vote  of  9  to  3  permission  was refused.

 

118.48 RESOLVED- That the  Committee  has taken  into  consideration  and  agrees with  the  reasons for the  recommendation set out  in  paragrapg  8  of  the  report   and  resolves  to  refuse  planning  permission  for  the  following  reasons  :

 

1.  The  sub  division  of  the  plot  and formation of  a pair  of  semi  detached houses  fail  o  emphasise  or enhance  the  key  neighbourhood  principles of  the  local  neighbourhood.  The  scheme  fails  to  take  into  account  the  bulk  and  design  of  existing  buildings  and  the  layout  and  character of  the  background  street  and  spaces and ,  as such ,  would have  a  harmful  impact  upon the  local  urban  character. This  is  contrary  to  policies  QD1,  QD2 and  QD3 of  the  Brighton  &  Hove  Local Plan.

2.  the  proposed  extensions  are  considered  poorly  designed  by reason of  their scale,  bulk,  massing  and  detail;  harming  the  character and  appearance  of  the  property  and  street  scene.  This is contrary  to  policies  QD1, QD2,  QD4  and  QD27  of  the  Brighton  &  Hove  Local  Plan  and  Supplementary  Planning  Guidance  Note  1 (SPG BH1 -  Roof  Extensions and  Alterations).

3.  The  proposed  extension  by  reason  of  its  bulk  and  massing  in  close  proximity  to  the  joint  boundary  is considered  to  harm  the  residential  amenity  of  adjoining  occupiers. It  would  result  in  a loss of  light to  and  harm the  outlook  of  number  25  Lustrells  Crescent.  This is  contrary  to  policies  QD1,  QD14 and  QD27 of  the  Brighton  &  Hove  Local Plan.

4.  The  development  fails  to  demonstrate that it  will meet  acceptable  standards  of sustainability,  will be  efficient in  the  use of  energy,  water and  materials  or  will  incorporate  appropriate  sustainability  measures  into  the  development.  This  is  contrary  to  policy  SU2 of  The  Brighton  &  Hove Local  Plan and Supplementary Planning  Guidance  Note  16  (Energy  Efficiency  and  Renewable  Energy).

5.  The  proposal fails to  meet  the  travel  demands  that it  creates  and  does  not  provide  the  necessary contribution  towards and  enhancement  of  sustainable  methods  of  transport  .  This is  contrary to  planning  policies  TR1 and  QD28  of  the  Brighton  &  Hove  Local Plan.

6.  The  proposal  fails  to  demonstrate  a  satisfactory  construction waste  minimisation strategy,  confirming  how  demolition   and  construction  waste will  be  recovered  and  re  used  on  site  or  at  other  sites.,  therefore  reducing  the  need  to  dispose of  waste  at landfill. This is  contrary  to  policies  SU13,  of  the  Brighton &  Hove Local  Plan  and  supplementary Planning  Guidance Document  03 (Construction   and Demolition Waste).  

Informatives : 

1. This  decision  is based  on   Design  and access Statement,  waste Minimisation  statement ,  Block  Plan  and  unnamed drawing  nos. 05/0608,  05/06080, 05 0608b,  05/0608c and  05 / 0608d,  submitted on  25  / 06  /  2008  and  Planning  Statement  10/09 /  2008.

 

118.49 Application BH2008/01460,  Saltdean  Barn ,  Arundel  Drive West,  Saltdean -  Extension to  existing  childcare  centre  comprising the  ground  floor  and an upper hall  within  the  roof  space,  including  the formation of  one  door  opening   and minor  alterations  to  the  listed building.

 

118.50 The Area Planning Manager (East) gave a  presentation referring to  elevational  drawings illustrating  the  proposed  extension  to  the  existing  childcare  centre.

 

118.51 Additional  conditions  were  proposed  by  Councillor  Steedman  ensure  that adequate  sustainability  measures were  in  place. This was supported by   the Committee.

 

118.52 A vote was taken and Members voted unanimously to grant planning permission.

 

118.53 RESOLVED – That  the  Committee  has taken  into  consideration  and agrees  with  the  reasons  for  the  recommendation  set  out  in  paragraph  8  of  this  report and  resolves  to  grant  planning  permission subject  to  the  conditions  and  informatives  set  out  in  the  report . and  subject  to  the following  additional  conditions  :

 

11.05.04 General Sustainability Measures

12.  The  extension hereby  approved  shall  not  be  brought into  use  until  a site  travel  plan (a  document  setting  out  a  package of measures  tailored to  meet the  needs  of  the  site  and  aimed  at promoting  sustainable  travel choices  and  reduce  reliance  on  private  motor  vehicles) for  the  whole  site,  including  the  existing  building,  has been  submitted to  and  approved  in  writing  by  the  local  Planning  Authority.  The  site  travel  plan  shall  be  implemented  as  approved   thereafter and  shall  be  subject  to  an  annual  review  in  accordance  with  details submitted to  and approved  in writing  by  the  Planning  authority.

Reason: To  reduce  traffic generation by  encouraging  alternative  means  if  transport to  the  private  motor  vehicle   and  comply with  policy TR  4  of  the  Brighton  &  Hove  Local  Plan.

 

118.54 Application  BH 2008/00958,  20b  Bristol  Mansions,  19  -  20  Sussex  Square, Brighton  -  Refurbishment  and modernisation of  existing  accommodation.

 

118.55  In  answer  to  questions  of  Councillor  Steedman  it  was  explained  that requirements  relating  to  detailing  of  the  fenestration   had been picked  up  in  the  proposed  conditions .

 

118.56 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  is  minded  to  grant   listed  building  consent ,  subject  to  the  receipt  of  satisfactory  amended  drawings relating  to  the  design  of  the  rear window  and  approval  from  GOSE   and to  the  conditions  and  informatives  set out  in  the  report.  

 

118.57 Application BH2008/00318, 1 to 19  Buckingham  Lodge,  Buckingham  place,  Brighton -  Construction  of  one  additional storey  to  form 6  1 bedroom  flats and conversion  of  2 of  the  existing  garages  into  a  bin  /  cycle  storage  area.

118.58 The  Area  Planning  Manager  (East) gave  a  presentation  detailing  the  proposals.  He  explained  that the application  site  had  been  subject  to  a number  of  planning  applications over  recent  years including  the  previous application which  had  been dismissed.  However,  the  Inspector  had  also  concluded  that a  scheme  which  included  an  additional  storey of  the  right  proportions with a set  back and  of  appropriate  design   could  improve  the  appearance  and  proportions  of  the  property.

 

118.59  Councillor  Davey  sought  clarification regarding  whether  or  not  improvements were  proposed  to  the  rest of  the   development  and  regarding  proposed  amenity  space .  it  was  explained  that this  would  take  the  form of  Juliet balconies.  Councillor  Mrs Theobald   sought  confirmation as to  whether  a  lift  would be  any provided within  the  development   and whether  the  proposals would  result  in  loss  of  a  disabled parking  bay.  It  was explained  that there  would  be  a  central;  staircase  and  that there  would  be  no  direct  loss  of  any  parking  although  access  to  the  existing  garages (which  were  not  believed currently  to  be  in  use)  was  unlikely to  be  lost ,  these  were  in a  parlous  and  un - used  state .

 

118.60  In answer to  questions of  Councillor  Wells  regarding  the rationale  for  the  development  being  car free  the  Traffic Manager  explained  that as there  was  a five  month  waiting  list  for  residents parking  permits  the  development   needed  to  meet  the  requirements  of  policies  TR1  and  HO7 .

 

118.61 Councillor  Kennedy stated  that she  considered  the  building  to   be  unattractive   as was  the  proposed  additional storey .However,  she  recognised  that the  Planning  Inspector’s  decision   represented a  material planning  consideration. Councillor  Mrs  Theobald  stated  that she  did  not   consider  it  appropriate  to  add  an  additional  storey  onto the  top  of  this existing  block  of  flats. She  considered  that this would represent  an overpowering  form of  development  within   the  context  of  the  Westhill  Conservation  Area. Councillors  Carden and  Smart   considered  that the  proposal  would  not  have  a significant impact  on  either  the  existing  building  or  the  surrounding  street  scene.    

 

118.62  A vote  was taken and on  a vote  of  6   of  to  1 with  5  abstentions planning  permission  was  granted  in  the  terms  set  out  below.

 

118.63 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  inforrmatives  set  out  in  the  report.

 

118.64 Application  BH2008/01952,  13  Broad Green,  Brighton  -  erection  of  a detached 4  bedroom  chalet bungalow .

 

118.65  Councillor  Wells  sought  clarification  regarding  whether the  application site had  already  been subdivided .  The Area  Planning  Manager  (East)  explained  that the  plot  had  already  been  divided  as a result  of  the  earlier permission.  The  current  application represented  revisions to  the  earlier scheme.

 

118.66  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  t bat  it  is  minded  to  grant  planning  permission subject  to   receipt  of  full  details  of  site  levels   and  ridge  heights  of the  proposed  house  and  adjoining  properties   and subject to  the  conditions and  informatives set out in  the  report .