Agenda item - BH2013/03968 - St Andrews Day and Resource Centre, St Andrews Road, Brighton - Full Planning Permission

Demolition of existing single storey building and garages and erection of 4no three bedroom houses and 3no two bedroom houses with associated car parking.

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Demolition of existing single storey building and garages and erection of 4no three bedroom houses and 3no two bedroom houses with associated car parking.

1)                      The Senior Team Planner, Kate Brocklebank, introduced the report and gave a presentation by reference to photographs, plans and elevational drawings; attention was also drawn to matters on the Late List. The application site related to a narrow strip of land which was currently the site of a single storey detached building with vehicular access to the south of the site; it was also noted the land levels differed on the site. Permission was sought for the erection of seven 2-storey dwellings and associated parking; the application followed the refusal of two previous applications for similar type schemes. The most recent appeal had only been dismissed for reasons in relation to the neighbour impact from the three properties at the rear. In order to address these concerns the existing boundary wall had been retained in this application, and the bulk at the rear would be contained below this boundary wall. There were conditions set out in the report in relation to spot heights and a method statement for the retention of the existing walling. For the reasons set out in the report the application was recommended for approval.

Public Speaker(s) and Questions

2)                      Ms Cathy Mason spoke in objection to the scheme in her capacity as a local resident; she stated that when the previous application had been refused the developer had mentioned that they would work with the local community; however, she had not any such contact to help address residents concerns. She noted that in the inspector decision particular attention had been paid to the group of properties at the front of the site, but she was of the view that the same level of attention should be equally paid to all the proposed properties. The new height of the wall and the ridge of the roof would create a sense of cramping and feel overbearing. The boundary wall and the new walls would be close to the bottom of the gardens of the existing properties, and the proposed bay windows would compromise privacy and impact on light. Whilst effort had been made to provide cross sections this had not been undertaken for all parts of the site, and this was representative of the impact on the existing buildings.

3)                      In response to the Chair it was confirmed by Ms Mason that she objected to the handling of the plans; the issues surroundings the boundary wall and the loss of light.

4)                      In response to Councillor Jones it was clarified by Ms Mason that she had directly approached the developer herself, and that the proposed development would impact on her back garden.

5)                      Mr Paul Burgess spoke in support of the application in his capacity as the agent acting on behalf of the applicant. The application would provide much needed family housing and would contribute towards housing in the city; the application was also supported by the Heritage Officer. In relation to the appeal of the previous refusal it was reiterated that the Inspector had raised no objection to the principle of the development; the layout or the design. Since then the scheme had been amended to address the sole reason for refusal in relation to neighbour amenity, and this had been achieved through the retention of the boundary walls which prevented the development being overbearing. The dwellings would also be dug down into the site, and the roof pitch had been moved further away from each boundary. It was felt that the application would help preserve the amenity, and the Committee were invited to approve the application.

6)                      In response to the Councillor Wealls it was confirmed that there was a small alleyway that went behind the first two houses, and the projected bays had been designed with views looking forward and back to protect amenity.

7)                      Councillor Jones asked the application about the communication with local residents; in response it was explained that the agent had attended the Inspector’s site visit and discussed matters with residents at this time. It was also added that there had not been any request from residents to meet with the application.

Questions for Officers

8)                      In response to Councillor Randall the Deputy Development Control Manager, Paul Vidler, confirmed that conditions in relation to access and lifetime homes standards had been included in the report and recommendation. Councillor Randall stated it was satisfied with the response from the Officer and he would support the recommendation.

9)                      In was confirmed for Councillor Duncan that the application was too small to request S106 contributions.

10)                 Councillor Littman asked about the visual impact on the conservation area and the Senior Team Planner explained that work had been undertaken to look at the acceptable standard for the loss of the historic building; the new buildings would not be expected to reflect the existing character, but should be subservient and the palette complimentary.

11)                 It was confirmed for Councillor Hyde that the proposed materials would be painted render and zinc roof cladding.

12)                 In response to the Councillor Gilbey it was confirmed that the existing access would be retained, and there was a redundant cross over that would have the kerb reinstated as part of the application.

13)                 In response to Councillor Wealls the Senior Team Planner confirmed that a daylight study had not been deemed necessary, but the developed had passed the standard ’25 degree’ test.

Debate and Decision Making Process

14)                 Councillor Duncan stated that he would support the Officer recommendation, but it was a shame no contributions for S106 monies could be secured.

15)                 Councillor Wells stated that this was a good use of the site, and he welcomed family type houses being built; for these reasons he would be supporting the Officer recommendation.

16)                 Councillor Cox noted he agreed with both of the previous speakers; he has sympathy for the local resident who had spoken in objection, but felt that this type of development was necessary in the city to meet housing targets. He stated that the Inspector’s position was quite clear on the matter and for these reasons he would support the Officer recommendation.

17)                 Councillor Randall stated that the scheme was reasonable, and the applicant had gone to lengths to ensure it was not overbearing.

18)                 Councillor Jones stated he had sympathy with the local objectors, but he felt it was appropriate for the site to be developed, and it was become increasingly necessary for developers to look at these types of sites. He noted the local concerns, but stated he would support the Officer recommendation.

19)                 Councillor Hyde stated she would support the Officer recommendation, but she stated her general dislike of zinc roofs as they did not weather well and were unsightly.

20)                 A vote was taken and the Officer recommendation to approve planning permission was granted on a vote of 11 in support with 1 abstention.

165.5    RESOLVED - That the Committee has taken into consideration the recommendation and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in section 11 and resolved to GRANT planning permission subject to conditions and informatives.