Agenda item - BH2019/02289 - 218 Dyke Road, Brighton BN1 5AA - Full Planning

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

2.     Liz Arnold (Principal Planning Officer) introduced the application and gave a detailed presentation by reference to site location plans, elevational drawings and photographs. The changes in the Addendum were pointed out to the Committee.

3.     It was noted that the main considerations in the determination of this application relate to the principle of development, the impacts of the proposal on the setting of the historic character and appearance of the Grade II Listed Building, design and appearance, standard of accommodation, impact on amenity, highways and sustainability.

Speaker

4.     Lisa Richardson of the Save Dyke Group spoke in objection to the proposals. The application site was described as a meeting place for the group. It was considered that the site was not suitable for housing and the proposals were squashed onto this unsuitable location. It was noted that the group have been campaigning since 2016 and reference was made to the report which stated that following the closure of the pub the ground floor of the property was converted to an A1 premises under permitted development. However, in June of last year an application was approved by the Local Planning Authority for the partial change of use of the ground floor from A1 to A4. The site plan for this earlier application excluded the former pub garden area and as a result of this previous approval the garden area was severed from the pub and was linked solely to the retained A1 retail unit. It was felt that this was not correct, and the Permitted Development rights related to the pub building and not the land. It was considered that Planning Policy HO20 was incorrectly used. The group feel that a community use for the site would be good. The proposals adjacent to a grade II listed building were not enhancing and harm would be caused by the development. The design needed to be a positive asset to the community and area.

Questions for Speaker

5.     Councillor Bridget Fishleigh was informed that the exceptions to the Retention of Community Facilities under Local Plan policy HO20 can only apply when: a. the community use is incorporated, or replaced within a new development; or b. the community use is relocated to a location which improves its accessibility to its users; or c. existing nearby facilities are to be improved to accommodate the loss; or d. it can be demonstrated that the site is not needed, not only for its existing use but also for other types of community use.

Speaker

6.     Councillor Amy Heley spoke as a Ward Councillor. The site was an asset of community value and a crowdfunded consultation had taken place and a Planning Statement submitted. It was felt that the development of the land had not been considered properly. The proposed dwelling would not have a garden. The bin and barrel stores will be next to the new home and result in conflict. It was noted that the Planning officer had gone against the Conservation Officer’s comments. The community asset needs to be saved for all and is currently used by the community. If the development goes ahead the asset will be lost forever. It was also felt that the pub would suffer a loss of earnings in the summer months if the garden was not retained.

Questions for Speaker

7.     Councillor Sue Shanks was informed that the site was not currently in community use.

Speaker

8.     Colm McKee spoke on behalf of the applicant and stated that the terms of Planning policy have been achieved with no residential community impact. The dwelling hits planning targets. It was confirmed that there is no other commercial use on the site. The committee were asked to approve this family unit.

Questions for Speaker

9.     Councillor Leo Littman was informed that out of the previously approved neighbouring flats, two had no amenity space.

10.  Councillor Sue Shanks was informed that the existing wall to the rear of the site did not form part of the application.

11.  The Conservation Advisory Group (CAG) representative was informed that the windows were not the same on all elevations in order to identify the principle elevation.

12.  Nicola Hurley (Planning Manager) noted that the application in 2019 gave A1 use on the ground floor of the pub and confirmed that the garden, which forms the application site, does not belong to the pub.

Questions for Officer

13.  Councillor Leo Littman was informed by Hilary Woodward (Senior Solicitor) that the garden was separated from the pub use under the change of use. It was noted that the plot of land was suitable and adequate by the Planning officer.

14.  Councillor Phelim Mac Cafferty was informed that it was not possible to protect amenity space by condition for the new owners of the pub. It was noted that the windows of the new dwelling would be conditioned to be fixed shut and double glazed for noise mitigation. It was confirmed that a method of construction statement would be required by condition, thereby negating a construction management plan.

15.  Councillor Sue Shanks was informed by Hilary Woodward that there is no requirement to sell the site to the community in preference to others. Any community value would not exist after the dwelling has been constructed.

16.  Councillor Tony Janio was informed by Hilary Woodward that the fact the land was an asset of community value was capable of being a material planning consideration; the planning use of the application plot was not as a pub garden; and there was no right of access for the community.

17.  Councillor Bridget Fishleigh was informed that the application site was not a pub garden and was separate from the pub.

18.  Conservation Advisory Group representative was informed by Nicola Hurley that it was not possible to request alterations to the design of the proposed dwelling and the committee could only determine the application before them.

Debate

19.  Councillor Leo Littman stated they were unhappy about the proposal and felt the site was being overdeveloped. The amenities of the new residents were considered to be acceptable. Councillor Littman did not support the application.

20.  Councillor Phelim Mac Cafferty commented that community assets are important and add value to an area. The application would form part of the 5 year Housing Land Supply targets. Councillor Mac Cafferty supported community assets including pubs but was unsure what grounds the application could be refused on and would be likely to be lost at appeal.

21.  Councillor Bridget Fishleigh commented that the site felt like the pub garden and the application would have a negative effect on the listed building. Councillor Fishleigh felt the application was incompatible with the area.

22.  Councillor Nick Childs stated they did not support the application and the development was inappropriate, too dense for the site and would have an impact on residents’ amenities. The impact on highways was a concern. Councillor Childs felt the committee had a duty to enhance an area and the application would not enhance the pub.

23.  Councillor Leo Littman felt the application was an overdevelopment of the site.

24.  Councillor Tracey Hill did not feel the application was an overdevelopment of the site and noted that the garden was already separated from the pub and no longer in that use. Councillor Hill supported the application.

25.  Vote: The Committee voted to go against the officer’s recommendation to Grant Planning Permission by a vote of 5 to 2.

26.  Councillors Joe Miller and Daniel Yates arrived during the discussions and did not take part in the discussions or the vote. Councillor Simson was not present throughout.

27.  A motion to Refuse the application on the grounds of overdevelopment and impact on the adjacent listed building and amenity was proposed by Councillor Littman and seconded by Councillor Childs. It was agreed that the final wording would be agreed by the Planning Manager.

28.  Vote: The Committee voted to Refuse the application by 5 to 2.

29.  The results of the recorded vote were as follows: For = Cllrs Littman, Littman, Childs, Fishleigh, Janio, Shanks. Against = Hill, Mac Cafferty.

30.  Resolved: The application was Refused by the Committee on the grounds of overdevelopment and impact on the adjacent listed building and amenity with the final form of wording to be agreed by the Planning Manager.