Agenda item - BH2019/00591 -125 Gloucester Road, Brighton -Full Planning

skip navigation and tools

Agenda item

BH2019/00591 -125 Gloucester Road, Brighton -Full Planning

Roof alterations to create first floor semi-external terrace, front rooflights, revised fenestration, refurbishment of chimney stacks and associated works.

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Ward Affected: St. Peter's & North Laine

Minutes:

              Roof alterations to create first floor semi-external terrace, front rooflights, revised fenestration, refurbishment of chimney stacks and associated works.

 

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

 

(2)       The Planning Officer, Laura Hamlyn, introduced the application and gave a detailed presentation by reference to site plans, elevational drawings and photographs detailing the proposals. Reference was also made to amended drawings which had been received and were referred to in the Late/Additional Representations List. It was explained that this application related to a two and three storey public house, The Eagle, located on the corner of Gloucester Road with Gloucester Passage. There were both residential and commercial properties within the immediate vicinity and the site fell within the North Laine Conservation Area, but was not Listed or in the setting of a Listed Building. Permission was being sought to remove part of the existing roof to create a first-floor semi-external terrace, to install front rooflights, revise the fenestration, refurbish the chimney stacks and associated works.

 

(3)       It was noted that the main considerations in determining the application related to the character and appearance of the resulting building and its impact on the North Laine Conservation Area, and the impact on neighbouring amenity. The proposed development would require the partial demolition of the roof of a building within the North Laine Conservation Area, however as the alterations would not be visible from the street and only limited private views, it was considered that the character and appearance of the conservation area would be preserved. Whilst the proposed development was likely to have an impact on neighbouring amenity, it was considered that this could be adequately mitigated through conditions such that the proposal would not result in significant harm. This conclusion is reached taking into account the fact that the proposal would not result in a change of use away from the existing use as a public house (A4), previous decisions by the LPA with regard to roof terraces associated with public houses in the city and further to advice received from the Environmental Protection Team; approval was therefore recommended.

 

              Public Speakers

 

(4)          Mr Busby and Ms Attwood spoke on behalf of neighbouring objectors setting out their objections to the scheme. They explained that they considered that the proposed semi-external terrace would have a detrimental impact on their amenity and could give rise to noise nuisance, particularly in view of their close proximity to neighbouring bedrooms. Details provided by the applicants were misleading in that respect. The use of this area would act as a funnel for noise.

 

(5)          Councillor Deane spoke in her capacity as a Local Ward Councillor setting out her objections to the proposed scheme. Councillor Deane was in agreement with the concerns expressed by neighbours. The immediate area was very densely populated and a number of the dwellings located closest to the premises were live work units and were therefore in use by those living there as their place of work as well as their homes. The impact of noise disturbance in such instances was therefore far greater.

 

(6)          Mr Bareham spoke on behalf of the applicants in support of their application. It was not considered that use of this area would have a detrimental impact in terms of noise break-out or other nuisance and that the volume of any sound emanating from this area would be at unacceptable levels.

 

              Questions of Officers

 

(7)          Councillor Yates asked regarding times during which the existing bar at first floor level was licensed and whether there were any plans to change the existing arrangements.

 

(8)          Councillor Miller had similar queries stating that he was concerned that providing an additional area at this level would encourage increased use and in consequence a greater volume of noise.

 

(9)          Councillor Childs enquired regarding the arrangements in place for smoking and sought clarification regarding whether this new roof terrace area was also likely to be made available for that purpose. It was confirmed that was not proposed.

 

              Debate and Decision Making Process

 

(10)       Councillor Janio stated that he was very concerned that there did not appear to be sufficiently detailed acoustic information available to indicate what the precise noise impact arising from the scheme could be.

 

(11)       Councillor Miller stated that he was unable to support the scheme. In his view providing this partly covered terrace area would undoubtedly encourage more people to use it and in his view that would undoubtedly give rise to increased noise levels.

 

(12)       Councillor Shanks whilst noting that smoking would not be permitted noted that in order to access the terrace customers would be carrying drinks up narrow staircases and use of the adjacent bar area would encourage increased use.

 

(13)       In response to members questions in relation to legislation in the event of noise nuisance Councillor Mac Cafferty stated that those largely fell within licensing legislation, whilst Members could determine that this application was unacceptable on planning grounds. Councillor Shanks concurred in that view.

 

(14)       Councillor Littman stated that in his view there were far too many unknowns for him to feel confident in supporting the recommendations. He was therefore unable to support them.

 

(15)       A vote was taken on the officer recommendation to grant the application and this was lost on a vote of 8 with 1 abstention. Councillor Littman then proposed that the application be refused on the grounds of detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers and noise nuisance which would be contrary to policies QD27 and CP12 of the Brighton and Hove City Plan. The proposal was seconded by Yates and it was agreed that the final form of wording of the proposed reasons for refusal be agreed by the Planning Manager in consultation with Councillors Littman and Yates.

 

(23)       A recorded vote was then taken and Councillors Hill, the Chair; Childs, the Deputy Chair; Fishleigh, Janio, Littman, MacCafferty, Shanks and Yates voted that the application be refused. Councillor Miller abstained. Therefore planning permission was refused on a vote of 8 with 1 abstention.

 

35.3       RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration the officer recommendation but resolves to REFUSE planning permission on the grounds proposed by Councillor Littman. The final wording to be used in the decision letter to be agreed by the Planning Manager in consultation with Councillors Littman and Yates.

 

              Note: Councillor Simson was not present at the meeting during consideration of the above item.

Supporting documents:

 


Brighton & Hove City Council | Hove Town Hall | Hove | BN3 3BQ | Tel: (01273) 290000 | Mail: info@brighton-hove.gov.uk | how to find us | comments & complaints