Agenda item - BH2020/00505 - 99-100 North Road & 42 Vine Street, Brighton - Full Planning

1.    It was noted that an in-depth presentation had been provided by officers in advance of the meeting and was included on the council website detailing the scheme by reference to site plans, elevational drawings and photographs which showed the proposed scheme in the context of neighbouring development. The main considerations in the determination of this application relate to the principle of development, the proposed design, and its impact on heritage assets, landscaping and biodiversity, impact on neighbouring amenity, the standard of accommodation created and the impact on the highway network.

Speakers

2.    Ward Councillor Deane did not consider the application to be an improvement on previous schemes that have been rejected before. The heritage officer reviewed the design and found it flat and unprepossessing. The properties nearby in Cheltenham Place will be impacted by the development. It is considered that the additional storey will remove sunlight from the tiny gardens. 1-11 Cheltenham Place will also suffer noise disruption. The two new homes will be detrimental to neighbours and there is not considered to be much need for offices. The committee are requested to reject the application.

3.    A statement from the applicant’s agent, Sarah Sheath was read out to the committee and stated that the application before Members follows the refusal of an earlier scheme and seeks to address the previous reason for refusal by reducing the scale of the proposed roof addition. The previous application was refused solely due to concerns about the scale, bulk, height and positioning of the roof addition being harmful to the character and appearance of the host buildings and wider conservation areas. In light of earlier refusals and the consideration by Appeal Inspectors, the Council raised no concerns in relation to any other matters, including impact on neighbour amenity. In order to address the last reason for refusal this proposal significantly reduces the scale of the roof addition and seeks to replicate an unimplemented scheme previously found to be acceptable by an Appeal Inspector. Accordingly, the additional floor has been stepped back from the edge of the building substantially and the existing parapets are proposed to be raised in height very slightly. All other elements of the proposals remain as previously proposed as no objections were raised to these parts of the previous application. The raising of the parapets not only helps reduce the visual impact of the now reduced roof addition but also addresses concerns raised previously in respect of the potential visibility and reflectivity of balustrade treatments. The Conservation Officer has confirmed that the amendments to the proposals now ensure that the host buildings will remain the dominant built forms and that the roof addition will read as a taller building in the background of the development. Given that many of the objections to this proposal have previously been considered and dismissed by various appeal inspectors and that the scheme now before members is virtually identical to a scheme that has previously been found acceptable by an appeal inspector, there can be no reason to now resist the application before you. The proposals have overcome the one reason for refusal previously cited, and all other elements of the scheme remain as were previously proposed and found to be acceptable by the Council. The scheme will secure the delivery of some 700 sqm of office floorspace in the centre of Brighton, along with two small residential units of accommodation. Planning officers have rightly balanced these benefits with the limited visual impact of the proposals and they have concluded that the overall balance falls in favour of the proposals. Officers are satisfied that the proposals have adequately addressed the previous reason for refusal, and now accord with Development Plan policies and it was requested that Members concur with officer’s findings and support the application.

Questions for officers

4.    Councillor Shanks was informed that the previous scheme was dismissed at appeal and the ground floor being residential did not form part of this application. The change of use class on the ground floor would allow more flexibility in the future.

Debate

5.     There was no debate.

6.    The Members were invited to vote and out of the 9 attending Planning permission was granted by a unanimous vote. (Councillor Henry was not present for the discussion and did not take part in subsequent the vote).

7.    RESOLVED: That the committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report and resolves to GRANT planning permission subject to the Conditions and Informatives in the report.