Agenda item - Plans List Applications, 9 July 2008

(i) TREES

41.1

RESOLVED -  That  the Committee has taken into  consideration  and agrees with  the  reasons for  the  recommendation set  out  in Paragraph  7 of the report and resolves to  grant  consent  for  felling  of  the  tree referred to  below  subject  to  the  conditions set  out  in  the  report :

BH2008/01725, Woodingdean Primary School,  Warren  Road,  Woodingdean 

[ Note :  Councillor  McCaffery  requested and  it  was  agreed that  in  future  as  far  as  was  practicable the  list  of  delegated   decisions  on tree applications should  record  the  reason  for  the  decision].

(ii) SUBSTANTIAL OR CONTROVERSIAL APPLICATIONS OR APPLICATIONS DEPARTING FROM COUNCIL POLICY

41.2

Application BH2008/00925, Maycroft & Parkside,  London  Road & 2,4,6 and 8 Carden Avenue, Brighton – Demolition of  existing buildings and  development  of  residential  care  home. 

41.3

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

41.4

The Planning  Officer  gave  a  detailed  presentation illustrating  the  proposals  by  reference to  detailed  plans and  photomontages which  also  illustrated the  distance  between the   application  site  and the  nearest  domestic  dwelling house.  It  was  explained  that vehicular  access would  be  via  the  north east  corner  of  the  site ,  where on –site  parking  for  25  vehicles  had  been provided .  the  building  would  be  constructed with pitched  roof,  dormers,  chimneys, dutch  gables  and  tiled  bays  and  would  be  of  a  traditional  appearance. The  proposed  development  would  replace  the  six  existing detached  houses,  and  would  provide residential accommodation for  the  elderly  in  accordance with  Policy  H011 of  the  Local  Plan .    

41.5

 In answer to  questions  the  Planning  Officer  explained  that the  building  would  be used  as  a  residential  care  home and would  contain  82 private  suites  (39 of  which  would  be for  residents suffering  from mental frailty or  dementia,   with  the  remaining 43  suites used  for  elderly  care. Communal living  /  dining  areas,  a  hairdressers  and  staff  facilities would  also   be  included. The  proposed  development was  considered acceptable  subject  to  conditions  to  control  the  development  on  detail  and  as  set  out  in  the  proposed  Section  106  Obligation.

41.6

 Mr Radmell spoke on behalf of neighbouring objectors stating  that in  their  view the  proposals  were  out  of  keeping  with  the  prevailing  street scene of  the  surrounding  area ,  would  be  bulky  and  overly  dominant  and  would  result  in  loss  of  amenity and  privacy for  neighbouring  residents.  It was considered that there was sufficient provision of such accommodation, this accommodation was therefore superfluous.  Mr  Weston  spoke  on  behalf  of the  applicant  in  support  of  their application he  explained  that the  scheme  as  presented  had  been  formulated  following  a public  exhibition  which  had  received  overwhelming  support Indications of  interest  had shown that a number  of  those  intending  to  reside  within  the  completed  scheme  were  City residents who  would be  freeing  up  family  homes  located  elsewhere  across  the  City. The  proposed  accommodation  would  provide  a  high  standard  of  modern care for  frail  and  elderly  residents. Councillor G Theobald spoke  in  his  capacity  as  a  Local  Ward  Councillor  setting  out  his  objections  to  the scheme reiterating  the  points  made  by  the  objector. The  proposed  development  would  be  inappropriate  at  this location  and would  dwarf  and  overlook  the neighbouring  developments as it  was not in scale  with  them or  of  a  complimentary  style,  resulting  in  loss of  amenity  and  privacy.  Proposed access  arrangements  to  the  site  could  also  be  problematic and  could  give  rise  to  an  increased  likelihood  of  traffic  accidents.

41.7

Councillor Barnett stated  that there  were  already  a number  of  good  quality nursing  homes  across  the  City and  queried  whether  there  was  sufficient  need for  the  type  of  accommodation  proposed. Councillor  Mrs  Norman sought  confirmation  regarding  the  precise  nature  of   the  accommodation  and  care  proposed  to  be  provided in  view  of  the  fact  that there  did  not  appear to  be  under provision  overall. It  was  explained  that the  accommodation  would  operate  as a  nursing  home for  those  who  were  either  physically  frail  or who  were  suffering  from  alzeimer’s or  dementia.  Councillor  Smart sought  confirmation  regarding  the purchase  cost  of  accommodation to  prospective  residents . It was explained however   that this did not constitute a relevant planning consideration.

41.8

Councillor  Kennedy  enquired  regarding  why  the  applicant  had  not  submitted an  Environmental  Impact  Assessment to  accompany their  application, as this  represented  best  practice  in  conjunction  with  a  major  application. It was  explained  that this  had  not  been  required by  the  Local  Planning  Authority but  that  a  number of  conditions  were  proposed,  any  development  would  also  be  contingent on  the  successful  completion of  a  Section  106  Obligation. Councillor  Kennedy  was  also  of  the  view  that details  relative  to  proposed  screening  would  also  have  been  desirable  particularly  bearing  in  mind  that   the  scheme  would  result  in  removal  of  mature  screening which  currently  helped  to  shield  the  site  from  the  main  London  Road  and  from  its  neighbours .

41.9

Councillor  McCaffery sought  clarification regarding the  definition of  a  suite  with  the  development  and the  applicant  explained  that the  majority  of  units  would  comprise  a  large  bedroom,  kitchenette  and  bathroom,  but  that a  small  number  of  units  would  comprise  two  rooms a  kitchenette  and  bathroom.

41.10

 Councillor  Mrs  Theobald enquired  whether  25  car  parking  spaces  plus  bicycle  parking  spaces  would  be  sufficient.  It was explained that it was considered that it would be.  Based  on  experience  of  use  at  other  similar  developments visits  by  family  members  tended  to  be  staggered  throughout  the  day/  during  the  week. Councillor  Mrs  Theobald  stated  that  it  appeared  that  it  appeared  that  neighbouring residents had  grave  concerns regarding  the proposed  form  of  the  development.  In  her  view  too  many  units  were  proposed of  too  great  density,  height  and  bulk,  which  would totally  overwhelm  neighbouring  buildings.  The  prevailing  character  of  the  area  was  of  lower rise  domestic dwellings with  gardens   and  low  rise  blocks  of  flats.  The  mock  tudor  design  did not  reflect  any  of  the  other  buildings  in  the  area. It was out of keeping and incompatible.  She  was  also  of  the  view  that the proposed  development  would  mar  the  gateway  entry  to   Patcham  /  the  city formed  by  the  London  Road  frontage  of  the  site.  She also considered that the loss of six homes was unacceptable.    

41.11

Councillor  Hamilton  stated  that he  considered  that it  was  important  that the  Urban  Characterisation  Study  be  completed  as  soon  as  possible,  as  this  would  provide  a useful additional  tool  in  assessing  the potential impact  of development  at various  locations across  the  city.  He considered  that there  was  a lack  of specialist  care  of  the type  proposed and he  considered  the  design to  be  acceptable.

41.12

 Councillors  Barnett and  Mrs  Norman stated  that whilst the  applicant  had  a  good  reputation for  providing  the  type  of  accommodation for  which  planning  permission  was  sought.  Neither considered the application site to be appropriate for the proposed form of development.

41.13

Councillor  Kennedy stated  that she  had  concerns regarding  the  scale  and  design of  the  proposed  development  concurring with  other  speakers  that  it  was somewhat different  to  that of  other development  in the  vicinity  of  the  site. She  also  had  concern regarding  advice  given by  officers’ in  response  to  questions which  related  to  potential grounds  for refusal of  planning  permission.  She  did  not  consider that details of  a  decision of  the  Planning  Inspectorate  relative  to  a  scheme  put  forward  by  the  applicant  in  another  county was  necessarily  relevant to Brighton  &  Hove. She  acknowledged  however  that  the  development  would  undoubtedly  provide  for  an  identified  need.  Councillor  Steedman concurred  in  that view  stating  that whilst acknowledging  the  value  of the  scheme  he  had  concerns regarding  its design.

41.14

Councillor Smart sought details regarding the proposed crossover arrangements.  He considered  that these could  give  rise  to a hazard, that  the height of  the  development was  too  great  and that there  were  too  few  parking  spaces.

41.15

Councillor Wells stated  that he  considered  the  proposed  development  was  acceptable  particularly  bearing  in  mind that those  who  took  up  residence were  likely to  free  up  family  accommodation elsewhere  across  the  City. Councillor  McCaffery  stated  that she  was  not  averse to  the  design and  considered  that it  would  provide  much  needed  accommodation. 

41.16

Councillor Hyde ,  the Chairman stated  that whilst  she  considered  the  design to  be  acceptable  she  had  concerns regarding  the  height  of  the  proposed  development .

41.17

A vote was taken and on a vote of 5 to 4 with 3 abstentions planning permission was refused on the grounds set out below.

41.18

RESOLVED - That the Planning Committee having  considered  the  above application considered  that  planning  permission should  be  refused  on  the  grounds  that   :

(1)  The  proposed  residential  care  home,  by  reason  of  its  bulk,  massing,  footprint,  height  and  design,  would  relate  poorly to  adjoining  houses  in  Carden  Avenue,  would  be  out  of  character with  the  surrounding  area  and  represents overdevelopment of  the  site.  The  proposal is  contrary to  policies QD1,  QD2,  QD3 and  QD27 of  the  Brighton  &  Hove  Local  Plan ;

(2) The  proposal involves  the  net  loss  of  six  houses  and  ,  as  such ,  represents  an  unacceptable loss of  dwellings  contrary  to  policy  H08 of  the  Brighton  and  Hove  Local Plan ;  and

(3) The  proposal,  due  to  increased  traffic  movements and  proximity to  the  junction of  London  Road and Carden Avenue,  would  exacerbate existing  traffic  problems in  the  area and  as such  is  contrary  to  policies  TR1 and  TR7  of  the  Brighton  and  Hove  Local  Plan.

[Note 1  : Councillor Smart  proposed  that  planning permission be refused  in  the terms  set  out  above . This was seconded by Councillor Mrs Theobald].

[Note 2: A recorded vote was   then taken. Councillors Barnett,  Davey,  Mrs  A  Norman, Smart and  Mrs  Theobald  voted  that  planning  permission  be  refused .  Councillors  Carden,  Hamilton, McCaffery and  Wells  voted  that  minded  to  grant  planning  permission  should  be  granted. Councillors Hyde, (Chairman) Kennedy and Steedman abstained.  Therefore  on  a  vote  of  5 to  4  with  3  abstentions planning  permission  was  refused  on  the  grounds  set  out].

41.19

Application BH2008/01113, BHASVIC College, 205  Dyke  Road, Hove – Proposed redevelopment of  educational facilities  comprising one  4 storey,  one 3  storey and one  3   and 1  storey blocks and  associated  works.  

41.20

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

41.21

The  Planning  Officer  gave  a  detailed  presentation  setting  out  the  proposals  by  reference  to detailed  drawings,  visuals  and  aerial views  in  order  to  indicate  the  configuration  and  coverage  of  the new  buildings  within  the  site. Amendments  had  been  made to  the proposed  theatre  block  following discussion  between   officers  and the  applicant  and  this  element  of  the  scheme  was  also  now  considered  acceptable .

41.22

It  was  explained  in  answer  to questions   it  would  be necessary  to  remove  5  trees  from  the  site  which  were  covered  by  TPO’s ,but  that overall it  was  envisaged that  a  very  good  BREAM  rating  would  be  attained .

41.23

Councillor Kennedy  asked  to  see elevational  material  looking  from  the theatre block  towards  the  Crocodile Walk. Questions  were  asked regarding whether  or  not  it  would  be  appropriate  to  provide  anti    graffiti treatment to  surfaces. Councillor Smart sought clarification regarding the location of parking within the reconfigured site. Councillor  Mrs Theobald  stated  that in  her  view  the  loss of  any  parking  was  to  be  regretted  bearing  in  mind  that the numbers  of  staff  and  students was  likely  to  increase. She  was  also  of  the  view  that a  condition  requiring  a  green  wall  to the facing  wall  would enhance  and  soften  the facing  wall  of  the  theatre  block. Confirmation  regarding  the precise  nature  of  the artwork to  be  provided  as  part  of  the  percentage  for  art  was  sought.  It  was  explained  that  this  would  be  decided  upon  by  a  Panel  and  that  Local  Ward Councillors  would be  part  of  the  commissioning panel.  

41.24

Councillor  Steedman  expressed  his  support  for  the  suggestion that a green  wall be  provided .  He considered that it was important to ensure that matching materials were used. The Development  Control  Manager  confirmed that it  would  be  most  appropriate  for  this  matter  to  be  dealt  with  by  way  of  an  additional  informative. Councillor  McCaffery  sought  clarification  by  reference  to  plans of  details  between the existing  and  new  buildings.

41.25

Mr  Small (CAG) stated  that whilst not  listed  the  main  entrance  building  was of  local  interest. Notwithstanding  that elements  of  the  scheme  would  be  set  back   he  was  of  the  view  that the  would  tower would  be  higher  than  this  building  and  could   be overly  dominant of  it.   He  was  also  concerned  that  where old  and  new  brickwork  would  exist  in  close  juxtaposition  to  one  another  that it  would  be  very  difficult  to  ensure an  exact match. Councillor Wells  expressed  his  support  of  the  scheme and  did not  share Mr Small’s concerns  relative  to  the  brickwork.  Councillors  Mrs  Norman  and McCaffery  also  supported  the  scheme which  they  considered was  of  a  good  design. Councillor Hamilton stated that the scheme would provide much needed modern purpose built accommodation.  It  was  noted  that the  scheme  would  result   in  the  loss  of  the  existing  weekend  boot  fairs .    

 41.26

A vote was taken and Members voted unanimously that minded to grant planning permission be  granted ,a  further  vote  was  taken  relative  to  the  addition  of  an  informative  seeking provision  of  a  green  wall/  roof  to  the  theatre and   this  was  agreed  on  a  vote  of  11  with  1  abstention.  

41.27

RESOLVED - That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in Paragraph 10 of the report and resolves that it  is  minded to  grant planning permission subject to receipt  of  an  amended  drawing  providing  visual  relief to  the  west elevation of  the  theatre,  a  satisfactorily completed Sustainability Checklist,  to the  Conditions  and Informatives  set  out  in  the  report  and  a  Section 106 Obligation to secure :

(i) £50,000 towards Sustainable  Transport Improvements ;  and

(ii) £30,000 towards public  art  ; 

and to  the  addition  of an  informative relative  to  :

the  provision  of  a  green  wall to the  wall /  roof as  appropriate  of  the  theatre block.   

[ Note : Members  voted  unanimously  that  minded  to  grant  planning  permission  be  granted  subject  to  successful  completion  of  the  Section  106 Obligation.  Councillor Hamilton abstained  from  voting  relative  to  the addition  of an  informative  relative  the  provision  of  a  green  wall].

(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 18JUNE 2008

41.28

 There were none.

(iv) OTHER APPLICATIONS

41.29

Application BH2007/04444, Land to Rear 67 - 81, Princes Road, Brighton – Erection of 8 new two and three storey houses at the rear and a single storey lift housed onto Princes Road. Provision of private   and communal gardens, refuse storage, cycle storage and one car parking.  

41.30

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

41.31

The  Planning  Officer explained that the  Committee  were  being  recommended to  agree  that   they  would  have  refused  planning  permission for  the  reasons  set  out  in  the  Conditions and  Informatives  set  out  in  the  report had  an  appeal against non -  determination  had  been  lodged  by  the  applicant . A  detailed  presentation  was  given and  it  was  explained  that  a  total  of 222 letters  of  objection  had  been  received  relative to  the  proposals.  Details  of  the site boundaries,  means  of  access  and location  of  the  conservation  area  were  shown.  It  was  explained  that the  site  was  considered  to be  a Greenfield  site  in  that available  records  dating  back  to  the  1950’s  indicated  that   the site  had previously  been  in  use  as  a small  holding.  Although  the roof  heights  of  heights  of  the proposed  buildings were   not  of  uniform  height they  remained  at  variance  with  those  of  the  prevailing  street  scene, albeit  that the  applicants had indicated  that  the  site  would  provide  100%  affordable  housing. Refusal was recommended on the grounds set out in the report.        

41.32

Ms Rogers  spoke  on  behalf of  neighbouring  objectors  setting  out  their  objections to  the  scheme. Objectors were  in  agreement  that  the site was a greenfield one  notwithstanding  that   it  had  been  subjected to rigorous clearance by the  applicants. In  the  view  of  objectors  notwithstanding  that at each subsequent  application  had comprised fewer  dwelling units,  the grounds for  refusal  had  not  been  overcome  and the  site  remained  unsuitable  for  the  number  of  dwellings  proposed  in terms  of  density,  overlooking,  steep gradients, configuration within the site,  access to  the  site  and in  relation  to  the  other grounds referred to in  the  officers  report. With  the  construction of the waste  transfer  station the  proposed  accommodation would  provide a  poorer aspect and  amenity for  any  future  residents  of  the  dwellings  than  would  previously  have  been  the  case. Mr  Coomber  spoke  on  behalf  of  the applicant  in  support  of   their  scheme stating  that in  their  view  it  constituted  a  brownfield  site,  the officers  recommendation  was  disappointing  in  that a  number  of  requests  to  meet  further  in  order  to discuss the  proposals  had  been  declined .  It  was  considered  that the scheme  represented  good  use  of  the  site  which  would  provide  much  needed  social  housing.  Issues  relative  to access  to  the  site  had  been  adequately addressed  in  the  applicants  view, the  registered  social  landlord would  have  allocation  rights  to  the  units and  it  could  therefore  be  ensured that units  would  be  allocated  in  line  with identified  need,  which  would  be  off  high  quality  and would  represent  a  sustainable  form  of  development . Councillor  Taylor  spoke  in  his  capacity  as  a Local Ward  Councillor  setting  out  his  objections to  the  proposals. He echoed  the  grounds put  forward  by  neighbouring  objectors stating that the various applications  had  come  forward  in  respect  of  the  site  all  of which  had  been unsuitable,  would  be  completely un neighbourly  to  existing residents  and did not  respect either  the  gradients of the  site  or the  character  of  the  surrounding area. He  considered  that in  order  to  prevent further  future  applications relative  to  a  site  which  in  his  view  was  totally inappropriate  for  residential  use he  thought  it  was  important  for   the Committee  to  designate  the  site as not  suitable as building land  and  urged  them  to consider  that  option.     

41.33

In  answer  to  questions  of  Councillors  Barnett  and Davey relative to  the  status of   the  land the  Planning  Officer  reiterated  that  the  land  was  designated  as  greenfield  in  that  records  relative  to  the  planning  history  of  the  site  indicated  that  there  had  never  been  any domestic  dwellings there. Councillor  Barnett  referred  to  the  fact  that retaining  walls  between  neighbouring  gardens  and  the  site appeared  to  have  been  removed  and that neighbouring  trees  also  appeared  to have been  removed.  The Planning  Officer  explained  that there  was  a  clear  delineation  between  the  site  and  the  garden  areas   attached  to  neighbouring  domestic  dwellings and  that  this  had  always  been  the  case. 

41.34

Mr Small (CAG) sought  information  regarding elevational details of  the  gatehouse which  would  front  onto  Princes  Road. Mr  Pennington,  Brighton  &  Hove  Federation  of Disabled  People  sought  details  relative  to  the  distance   of  the  proposed  disabled  parking  bay  from  the  site   bearing  in mind  that  this  would  be  available  for  use  by  any  disabled  driver  in  the  vicinity and  not  necessarily  a  resident  of  the  proposed  development. Councillor Davey also sought confirmation in respect of this matter. Councillors  Barnett  and  Mr Pennington  also  sought  details  of  the distance of  residents  front  doors  on  leaving  the  lift at site  ground  level. Councillor  Smart  also  sought  details  of  alternative  means  of  access  onto  the  site  for  wheelchair  or  other  disabled  users  in  the  event  of  the  lift  being  inoperable . Details  of  arrangements  to  leave   the  site  in  the  event  of  fire  were  also  sought.

41.35

Councillor Mrs  Theobald  sought  details  regarding provision  to  the  site  by  the  City  Car  Club and  it  was  explained  that such details would  need  to  form  the  subject  of  separate  negotiation. In answer  to  further questions  it  was  explained  that  nomination  rights  would  vest with the registered social  landlord.  

41.36

Councillor Mrs  Norman  considered  that  works  to  the  site  entrance  way  were likely  to  compromise the adjacent  tree  which  formed  the  subject  of  a  TPO. She  also expressed  concerned  regarding difficulties  in  accessing  the site due to  the  steep  gradient  in  order  to get  onto it,  in  the event  of  lift  failure  or  during  inclement  weather  this  could also  represent  difficulties  for  able  bodied residents as  well.  Councillors Mrs Theobald and McCaffery echoed those views.

41.37

Councillors  Barnett  and  Smart  stated  that they  recognised  that  there  was  a desperate  need  for  affordable  housing,  but stated  they   had  concerns  regarding access  issues  in  relation  to  the  site.  Councillor  Wells,  acting  as  Chairman,  stated  that  he  considered  the  proposals  to  be  acceptable  and  would  provide  much  needed housing.  Councillor  Hamilton  stated  that  on  balance  he  considered  the  officers  recommendation  to  be  appropriate  and  one  which  should  be  supported.

41.38

Councillors  Davey,  Kennedy  and  Steedman  stated  that in  their  view  the  proposed  scheme was  wholly inappropriate and considered that  the  Committee  should  pass  a resolution precluding its use  as building  land.  However,  the  Solicitor  to  the  Sub  Committee stated  that  this  was  not  appropriate  as  the  Committee should not fetter its future  decision making  in  respect  of  any  site .

41.39

A  vote  was  taken  and on  a  vote  of  6  to  2 with  3  abstentions planning permission  was  refused  on  the  grounds  set  out  below.  

41.40

RESOLVED - That  the  Committee  has taken  into consideration  and  agrees  with  the  reasons set  out  in  the  report and resolves  that  the  Local Planning Authority would  refused  planning  permission for  the  reasons  set  out  below,  had an  appeal against non-  determination not  been lodged  by  the  applicant  :

1.  the  proposed  development,  by  reason of  excessive site  coverage and  inadequate  boundary  separation,  overly  large  unit  proportions  and  inadequate  space  around  the  proposed  dwellings  is considered  to  be  san overdevelopment of  the  site resulting in  overlooking to  and  cramped  living  conditions  for  future  occupiers ,  contrary  to  Brighton &  Hove  Local  Plan  policies QD1,  QD2,  QD3,  QD27, HO4  and  HO5.

2. T proposed  terrace  by  reason of  its  excessive building  height  in  relation to  plot  size,  excessively  deep and  bulky  proportions,  bulky  terraces,  inappropriate materials,  and  lack of  separation to  site  boundaries  and  failure  of  the  ridge  heights to   appropriately  step down following  the  gradient  of Princes  Road,  would  result in  a  poor  appearance  that was  incongruous with  the  existing  Princes Road terrace and harmful to  the  setting of  the  terrace  properties  and  views into  the  area and the  character and  appearance  of  the  Round  Hill  Conservation Area contrary  to  policies QD1, QD2,  QD3, QD4 and  HE6 of the Brighton  &  Hove  Local Plan.

3.  The proposed  car  free development  fails  to  provide  for  the  resulting  travel demand  and  would  be likely  to  exacerbate  the  existing  on-  street  parking stress  and result  in  the  displacement  of  existing  resident  parking, contrary  to  Brighton&  hove  Local Plan  policies  TR1,  TR19,  QD27 and  HO7.

4.   The  proposed development  by  reason  of  its  bulk,  height and lack of  separation to adjoining  site  boundaries  would  appear overbearing and  result  in  overlooking and  a  loss  of  privacy  to  the  rear of  the  Princes  Road properties,  to  the  detriment of  residential  amenity contrary  to  policy  QD27 of  the  Brighton &  Hove  Local  Plan.

5.  The proposed  development  would  result  in  the  loss  of  a  Greenfield  site  which  had  significant  ecological  interest. The  applicant  has failed  to  incorporate  nature  conservation mitigation and enhancement  measures  within  the  design of  the  proposal and  as such  has failed  to  address and  mitigate  the  adverse  impacts  on  the  development  on the   nature  conservation value  of  the  site  contrary  to  policies  QD17, QD18, and  QD19 of  the  Brighton & Hove  Local Plan.      

6.  The  proposed solar panels  would  result  in  a  cluttered  roof  scape and  insufficient  information has  been  submitted with  regard  to  the  appearance of  the  solar panels,  and  in  the  absence  of  an  Echomes /  Code  for  Sustainable  Homes  pre-assessment  by  an  accredited assessor,  the  contribution the  solar panels make  towards  achieving  the  necessary  rating  cannot  be  properly  assessed.  Therefore  the  proposal cannot  be  properly  judged  against  policies QD1,  Qd2, QD4,  HE6 and   SU2 of  the Brighton &  Hove  Local Plan and  Supplementary  Planning  Guidance  Note 16 “Renewable  Energy  &  Efficiency”.

7.  The  applicant  has  failed to  demonstrate that the  development  would  not  adversely  impact  on  the  Horse  Chestnut tree  which  is adjacent  to  the  proposed  access  to  the  site. As  such  it  is  considered that the  proposal  is  contrary  to  policy  Qd16,  of  the  Brighton &  Hove Local Plan.

8.  The  proposed development  would  result in  an  off  road parking  space and  cross  over  from  Princes  Road which  would  be  detrimental  to  the  character and  appearance  of  the   conservation area,  in  particular Nos  67  -  81  Princes  Road ,  which are  characterised  by  front  boundary  walls and  front gardens.  As  such  the  proposal is  contrary  to  policies  QD2 and  HE6  of  the  Brighton  &  Hove Local  Plan.

Informatives: 

1. This decision is based on drawing nos.0409,-07-001, 011, 012,013, 014, 015, 020, 021,022, 023, 024 submitted on 30 November 2007, Tree report submitted 11 February 2008.

[Note : Having declared  a  personal  and  prejudicial  interest  in  respect  of  the  above  application Councillor  Hyde vacated  the Chair  and left  the  meeting  during  consideration  of  the  above  application. Councillor Wells the Deputy Chairman took the Chair during her absence].

41.41

Application BH2008/01357, 17  - 19 Oxford  Street, Brighton -  Change  of use of  ground and  first  floor from  class A2 (finance and  professional  services) to  class  A3 (restaurant  and  cafe) and A4 (drinking  establishment) with  associated  internal  alterations and rear  roof  terrace.

41.42

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

41.43

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

41.44

Application BH2008/01327, 196 Dyke Road, and Brighton – Proposed demolition of two houses and erection of a four storey block of 8 flats.

41.45

The Planning Officer   gave  a detailed  presentation referring  to  the  configuration  of  the  existing site  and  to site coverage relative  to  the  proposed  development. It  was  considered  that  the  previous  reasons  for  refusal  had  been  overcome  in that the proposed design  had  effected improvements  which respected the character  and appearance  of  the neighbouring  Booth  Museum.   It  was  proposed  that all  of units  would have  amenity  space  in  the  form  of  balconies  and  in  the  case  of  the  ground  floor  unit  a  patio.

41.46

 Councillor  Hyde the Chairman  welcomed  the  improvements  which  had  been effected  to  the  design of  the  building . In  answer  to  questions the Planning Officer  explained  that  there  were no  residential properties  immediately  abutting the  site. In  answer  to  questions  by  Councillor  McCaffery  it  was  explained  that the  Territorial  Army barracks  was  located  immediately to the  rear  of  the  application  site.  Councillor  McCaffery  enquired  whether  the  existing  entrance  to  the  site  was  to  be  retained ,  in particular  the  statues  currently  in  situ  to either  side  of thee  gate  pillars. It  was  explained  that these  would  need  to  be  removed  in  order not  to  impede  the  sight lines  for  vehicles  accessing or  egressing  from  the  site.

41.47

Councillor  McCaffery  expressed  surprise  that  issues  had  not  been  raised  relative  to  additional vehicular  movements  and traffic  which  would  be  generated  by  the  site in an area  where traffic  congestion  was  already  an  issue.  In  answer  to questions  put  by  Councillor  Kennedy it  was  explained  that  it  was  proposed to  provide on – site  parking  for  9  vehicles  which  equated  to  one  parking  space per  unit.

41.48

Councillor  Mrs  Theobald   stated  that  she did  not  support  the  proposed  development  considering  that  the  two  dwelling  houses  currently on site  should  be retained  as family  homes.  Mr  Small (CAG) reiterated  the  comments submitted  by  CAG  and  the  Prestonville  Community Association and  which were set out  in  the  report.  In  their  view the  application was  inappropriate to  the  setting  and  unique  character  of  the listed Booth  Museum over which  it  would  have  a  commanding  impression.  It  was  also  considered that  it  was  difficult to  ascertain  from  the  photomontages  accompanying the  application what  impact  the  development  would  have  on  surrounding  development.        

41.49

A  vote  was  taken  and on  a vote of  8  to 3  with  1 abstention planning  permission  was granted  in  the  terms  set  out  below.

41.50

RESOLVED - That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendations set out in Paragraph 8 of the report and resolves  to  grant planning  permission subject  to  receipt  of  a  satisfactorily completed Sustainability  Checklist and  to  the  Conditions  and Informatives  set out  in  the  report.

[ Note :  Councillors McCaffery, Mrs  A  Norman  and Mrs  Theobald  voted  that the  application  be  refused.  Councillor Kennedy abstained].

41.51

Application BH2008/00829,  85D Crescent  Drive  North,  Woodingdean -  Alterations to  roof  including  raising the  ridge height.  Insertion of two  dormers and roof light in  north /  west  elevation,  dormer and  roof light in  south /  east  elevation,  two  roof  lights  to north  /  west  elevation and window  and roof  light  to  south  /  west  elevation.

41.52

A  vote was  taken and  on  a  vote  on  10  to  1 planning  permission  was  granted in  the terms set out  below. 

41.53

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.

[Note : Councillor  McCaffery  abstained  from  voting  in  respect  of  the  above  application. Councillor Hamilton was not present at the meeting when the vote was taken]. 

41.54

Application BH2007/01574,  Hove  Rugby Club, Hove  Recreation  Ground,  Shirley  Drive,  Hove -  Extension  to  clubhouse to  provide  additional changing  rooms,  clubroom  and  entrance  porch.

41.55

Members considered  that it  would  be  beneficial to  hold  a  site  visit prior  to  determining the application.

41.56

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

41.57

Application BH2007/00942,  55 – 57 Church Road,  Hove  - Change  of  use  of  no  57  from  retail (A1) to  restaurant  (A3) in  conjunction  with  no.55  single  storey rear extension,  alterations to  basement and ground  floor  and  installation of  extract ducting to rear elevation.  Formation of front boundary wall and replacement shopfronts to nos.  55 & 57.  

41.58

Councillor Steedman  enquired   regarding  the  location of  waste  storage facilities,  seeking  confirmation  that they  were  considered  to be  adequate. It  was  explained  that  these  would be  located  to  the  rear  of  the  premises.  Councillor  Smart  considered  it  regrettable  that  the  retail use would  be  replaced  by  a  restaurant.  

41.59

A  vote  was  taken  and on  a  vote  of  9  with 2 abstentions  planning  permission  was  granted in  the  terms set  out  below.

41.60

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.

41.61

[Note : Councillors McCaffery  and  Smart abstained  from  voting  in  respect  of  the  above application. Councillor Hamilton was not present at the meeting when the vote was taken]. 

41.62

Application BH2007/02454, 5 -  6  Western Road,  Hove – Part  retrospective  application for  the  erection  of  a  four  storey building  over  an  existing basement level nightclub, comprising a ground floor bar (A4) and six flats over the  floors above,  and  including  alterations  to  existing  elevations.    

41.63

The Planning Officer referred to the additional submissions received and set out in the “Late Representations List”.  It  was  noted  that  Councillor Elgood  fully supported  the officers’ recommendations and  would be  happy  to revise  his  objections accordingly  should  the  Committee  grant  permission.    A  detailed  presentation was  given detailing recent past planning history relative  to  the  site  and the  measures   for  which planning  approval was  now  sought  which  sought  to    ameliorate  and remedy  the  current situation on  site and  to  ensure  completion   of  the  development .  The individual floor plans for  each floor  of  the  building   were  referred  to as were proposals  relating  to  storage  of domestic  and recycling waste  within the building, for  clearance by  private contractors only  via  Western  Road  rather than  via Farman Street   and  Cross  Street. Conditions  were  proposed  which  would  ensure  that operation  of   the basement  nightclub  and  ground  floor  bar were entirely  separate  and  could  not  be  combined.  In  order to reduce  the  height  of  the  shuttered  elevation in  line  with  the  recommendations contained  in  the Planning  Inspector’s  report  relative  to  the  most recent  appeal  decision,  the  height  of  the  lift  shaft would  be  reduced.  Access to the top two floors would be by means of staircases. Measures  were  also proposed  relative to  the  replacement of  the  existing  UPVC  windows,  coating of surfaces provision where appropriate  with  vandal  proof  paint,  relative to  removal of  the  existing  ramp   and provision  of  CCTV cameras in  Farman Street .                    

41.64

Mr  Chavasse,  present  to  speak  on  behalf  of neighbouring  objectors stated  that having  conferred  with the  applicant’s  representative he  was  prepared  to  withdraw   the objections raised  on  the  basis  that works  would  be  carried  out  as indicated particularly  in  relation  to  the  removal  and  storage  of waste .  Mr  Barling spoke  on  behalf of  the  applicant  in  support  of  their  application.  He  stated  that the  current  application sought to complete  the  scheme  and  to  carry  out  the  building  works  in  a  manner  which  was  acceptable  to  all  parties,  and  overcame  the planning  objections  and  the  issues  raised  by  the  Planning  Inspector  in  relation  to  the  most  recent  planning  appeal . There  was  a will  to  ensure that all  works  were  properly  carried  out ,  in  order  to  obviate  the  need  for  the  building  to  be demolished which  would  not  be beneficial  to  any  party . He  was  confident that the architect currently engaged  would  ensure  that  these  works   were  carried  out  in  accordance with the  submitted  plans  should  the  application  be  approved.     

41.65

Councillor Davey  sought  clarification regarding  the  location of  cycle  parking  facilities  relative  to  the  development  and  it  was explained  that these  would  be located at  basement  level with the  remainder  at  first  floor  internally.  Bicycles could be taken up to that level via the internal lift.

41.66

Mr  Small  (CAG) enquired  whether as details  relative  to  a  number  of  conditions were  still  awaited  whether  it would  be  appropriate  for  the  Committee  to  grant  permission  at  this  stage. The  planning  officer  explained  that it  the  conditions  of  any  permission  granted  were  not  complied  with  that the  Enforcement  action  would  be  taken. 

41.67

Mr  Pennington,  Brighton  &  Hove  Federation  of  Disabled  People enquired  regarding disabled  access arrangements to  the  building.  He  considered  that the current  proposal  was inadequate, as  a result  of  lowering  of  the  lift  tower this  meant  that access  to  the  top  two  floors  of  the  building was  via  stairs  which  meant  they  were  not  fully  accessible .

41.68

The  Planning Officer  explained  that  it  was  accepted  that in  order  to  effect  the changes necessary to  meet  planning  requirements   and  to  address  the issues  raised  in  the  Planning  Inspector’s  report  that  a  compromise  solution  had  been  reached.

41.69

A  vote  was taken and  Members  voted  unanimously  that planning  permission  be  granted minded  to  grant subject  to  expiry  of  the  consultation period  in the  terms  set  out  below.

41.70

RESOLVED –  That  the  Committee has taken  into  consideration  and  agrees with  the  reasons set out  in  Paragraph  9  of  the  report  and  resolves  to  grant  planning  permission  subject  to  the  Conditions and Informatives set out  in  the  report and  addition  of  Condition  3  relative  to  the  provision of  appropriate  lighting.

(v) DECISIONS ON APPLICATIONS DELEGATED TO THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT

41.71

RESOLVED – Those details of the applications determined by the Director of Environment under delegated powers be noted.

[Note 1: All decisions recorded in this minute are subject to certain conditions and reasons recorded in the Planning Register maintained by the Director of Environment. The register complies with the legislative requirements].

[Note 2 : A list of representations, received by the Council after the Plans List reports had been submitted for printing had been circulated to Members on the Friday preceding the meeting. (For copy see minute book). Where representations were received after that time they would be reported to the Chairman and Deputy Chairman and it would be at their discretion whether these should (in exceptional cases), be reported to the Committee. This in accordance with resolution 147.2 of the then, Sub Committee held ion 23 February 2005].