Agenda item - BH2012/03550 - 41 Carlyle Avenue, Brighton - Full Planning

Demolition of existing house and erection of a terrace of 3no three bedroom houses with associated landscaping and cycle storage.

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Demolition of existing house and erection of a terrace of 3no three bedroom houses with associated landscaping and cycle storage.

(1)                   The Area Planning Manager (West), Zach Ellwood, introduced the report and gave a presentation by reference to plans, photographs and elevational drawings. It was explained that the existing detached property sat at an angle to the road and did not reflect the line of other buildings in the street. The street also sloped right to left and number 43 was at a higher level; however, there were no windows in the flank elevation onto the site. Using plans it was shown that the proposed properties would be situated in line with the other buildings in the street, and due to the slope of the street there would be access by steps and ramps. Bin and recycle storage would be situated at the front of the properties and screened, and there would also be small front gardens. The characteristics of the proposed properties would echo those already in the street with bay windows; the scheme also included dormers to the rear and photovoltaic panels. The design would be very similar to a scheme next door, and Officers were of the mind that the proposed visual relationship would be an improvement, and an efficient use of the site. The transport section had also raised no concerns in relation to parking. The application was recommended for approval for the reasons set out in the report.

Public Speakers and Questions

(2)                   Mr Palmer spoke in objection to the scheme in his capacity as a local resident and stated that he had been a resident at no. 43 Carlyle Avenue for 13 years. He highlighted that he had a series of documents to demonstrate a different position between the published report and his understanding of the application, and noted that he felt the decision should be deferred to give these consideration. He noted differences in appearance between the proposed buildings and the details and finishes of the existing 1930’s buildings; he also stated that the conservatory at the rear of his property would be affected. Mr Palmer went on to highlight areas that, in his view, presented discrepancies between the report and the application of guidance and policy.

(3)                   In response to a question from Councillor Hyde it was explained by Mr Palmer that development of high density housing to the northwest of the site by the same developer was already showing signs of deterioration.

(4)                   Mr Alderton spoke in support of the scheme in his capacity as the agent, and stated that he welcomed the recommendation in support of the application; highlighting that the report did not find negatives with the proposed scheme. He was of the view that the proposed scheme met the objectives of the local plan, and it offered a clear continuity of the development pattern within the street. It was considered that the neighbour objections were not on planning grounds, and the proposed building would offer an improvement to the amenity of the adjacent property; nor would the rear garden be overlooked. Mr Aldteron asked that the Committee accept the Officer recommendation.

(5)                   In response to a query from Councillor Davey it was explained by Mr Alderton that the site to the north west that had been referenced by Mr Palmer was by the same developer; however, it was felt the concerns related to maintenance. The development had been there for approximately 4-5 years.

Questions for Officer

(6)                   In response to a query from Councillor Cobb it was explained that the front of the proposed properties would sit in line with the existing buildings on the street, and extended slightly beyond them at the rear. The gap between no. 43 and the proposed properties would be approximately 5 metres.

(7)                   Councillor Carol Theobald asked about windows of the side elevation, and it was explained there were none proposed on the flank wall.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(8)                   Councillor Hyde explained that she had considered the concerns of neighbours, but was of the mind that the proposed scale, mass and form were appropriate for the site; she also stated that the new development would fit in better with the street scene, and she would support the Officer recommendation.

(9)                   Councillor Wells stated he approved of the application, and was of the mind that the materials and build would be more in keeping with the existing buildings in the street. He stated that, although it was a shame to demolish the existing building – the proposal would be a better replacement, and he would support the Officer recommendation.

(10)               Councillor Carden expressed concern about the accessible of the area, and in response it was confirmed that the nearest bus stop was approximately 5 minutes walking distance.

(11)               Councillor Davey stated the proposal was appropriate to the site and offered an improvement to the area.

(12)               Councillor Hawtree stated that the existing building lacked any distinguishing façade.

(13)               Councillor Carol Theobald stated that it was a shame to lose the existing family home, but felt the proposal would sit better in the street scene.

(14)               Before a vote was taken the Head of the Development Control, Jeanette Walsh, highlighted that the scheme had been publicised and put out to consultation as part of the authority’s statutory obligations, and there was no reason to postpone the decision.

(15)               A vote was taken and planning permission was unanimously granted.

155.3     RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation, and the policies and guidance set out in the report and resolves to GRANT planning permission subject to the Conditions and Informatives in the report.