Agenda item - BH2020/01973 - 40 Dyke Road Avenue Brighton - Full Planning & Demolition in a Conservation Area

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE

Ward Affected : Withdean

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.

2.    The main considerations in the determination of this application relate to the principle of the development, its design and heritage impacts, particularly in relation to the conservation area. The impact on neighbouring amenity, the trees on site, transport network and sustainability issues are also considered.

3.    The committee were informed by the case officer that paragraph 8.4. should read: The present proposal would result in the replacement of the existing dwelling so no housing gain.

Speakers

4.    Lap Chan spoke to the committee as the applicant’s agent. The determination of the application is considered on the loss of the existing building which is only a heritage asset in as much as it is in a conservation area. Other properties in the area are set back from the front boundary and there is no consistency in the area. The styles and appearance of properties in the area are mixed with most buildings being behind walls and hidden from sight. The development has been redesigned following contact with the case officer and this was supported by the Conservation Advisory Group (CAG) and a ward councillor. The new dwelling could meet Passivhaus standards as the new build will be energy efficient. It is noted that the existing building is not updateable.

Questions for speaker

5.    Councillor Miller was informed that the applicant would live in the new property.

6.    Councillor Fishleigh was informed that the CAG approved the arts & crafts design.

Questions for officers

7.    Councillor Yates was informed that the application was for a replacement single dwelling. It was noted that the property had been converted back to one dwelling from two, some time ago.

Debate

8.    Councillor Miller approved of the design, which was considered better than the previous one and more fitting to the area. The scheme for a family unit was good. The councillor supported the scheme and was against the officer recommendation for refusal.

9.    Councillor Fishleigh considered the design to be an improvement and supported the application.

10. Councillor Simson considered the existing property to be an eyesore and the new design to be better than the previous one. The councillor supported the scheme and was against the officer recommendation for refusal.

11. Councillor Yates supported the application and was against refusal. The proposed dwelling, to be of a high standard, would be a good addition to the area. More dwellings would have been better, but one was better than none.

12. Roger Amerena (CAG) considered this application to be better than the last one with the forecourt wall being reinstated. The new dwelling would be a plus for the area.

13. A vote was taken and out of the 8 Members present the committee voted unanimously against the officer recommendation to refuse planning permission. (Councillor Hills had withdrawn and took no part in the debate or decision-making process).

14. A motion to grant planning permission was proposed by Councillor Miller and seconded by Councillor Childs.

15. Councillor Miller stated what the proposed reasons for grant as per the recommended reason for refusal  except remove “No” in the second  sentence; third sentence reads “…existing building does preserve and enhance the appearance and character of the area and would not cause harm…”; final sentence deleted. The reasons for grant should be included in the minutes.

16. Councillor Littman requested that the imposition of suitable conditions be delegated to the Planning Manager.

17. A recorded vote was held: Councillors Osborne, Childs, Miller, Henry, Fishleigh, Yates, Simson and Littman voted in favour of granting planning permission.

18. RESOLVED: That the Committee has taken into consideration the report and resolves TO GRANT planning permission for the reasons set out above and subject to conditions to be agreed by the Planning Manager. The final wording of the GRANT to be agreed by the Planning Manager.