Agenda item - BH2012/02586 - 108 Preston Drove & 193 Havelock Road, Brighton - Full Planning

Demolition of existing outbuildings and erection of 1no two bed house fronting Havelock Road.  Additional alterations including a new communal entrance and window to flats at 108 Preston Drove.

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE

Demolition of existing outbuildings and erection of 1no two bed house fronting Havelock Road.  Additional alterations including a new communal entrance and window to flats at 108 Preston Drove.

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

(2)                   The Area Planning Manager (West), introduced the report and gave a presentation by reference to plans, photographs, elevational drawings and an unverified photo montage; it was also noted that the advertisement had gone into the press in error, and it was necessary to amend the recommendation to be MINDED TO REFUSE. Reference was also made to the Late List. The application site related to a commercial premises with residential accommodation above, and series of storage sheds to the rear used in connection with the commercial premises. The proposal was for a two-storey building to replace the existing sheds. It was noted that there was currently a sizeable gap between the rear of the property on Preston Drove, and the terrace on Havelock Road which was considered important for the character of the area; the application proposed to fill in this gap with materials and a design to match the surrounding area. The application proposed no windows at the rear of the proposed building, nor any to the flank wall onto the building on Havelock Road.

(3)                   The principle of residential development was not objected to; however, there was concern in relation to the conservation area, and it was felt the proposals would be dominating and fill in the gap to the detriment of the wider area. It was also noted that a similar request to infill had been refused on the grounds of the impact of the loss of the gap in the context of the conservation area. Officers also had concern in relation to the loss of light for the garden at no. 106 Preston Drove, and the overbearing nature of the proposals. The proposed amenity space to the front was also considered to be insufficient and unpractical. The layout and size of the proposed building was considered to be inadequate and cramped; no evidence had been provided that it would comply with lifetime homes standards. The outbuildings were currently used in connection with the commercial premises, and a loss of these could restrict the storage space for the shop; as well as the visual amenity of the area and the future viability of the business. The application was recommended to be minded to refuse for the reasons set out in the report and in the Late List.

Public Speakers and Questions

(4)                   Mr Shah spoke in support of the application in his capacity as the applicant and stated that his family had owned the commercial premises for over 30 years as a successful convenience store; however, the area to the rear with the storage sheds had always been troublesome, and recently it had been necessary to keep the gates locked. The current application had been submitted in consultation with the planning authority, and the scheme was a response to a previous refusal at the site. The scheme requested a modest infill, and it was considered that the neighbours ‘right to light’ at the rear would not be affected. It was felt the application would help to ‘tidy up’ the area and compliment the existing building.

Questions for Officers

(5)                   Councillor Cobb asked for confirmation on the communal alleyway and it was explained that this related to the gap between the site and the property on Havelock Road.

(6)                   Following a query from Councillor Hyde it was explained by Officers that their concerns related to the proposed closeness of the out-rigger to the property at 191 Havelock Road. It was also considered that the setting back of the first floor would not be sufficient to protect neighbouring amenity.

(7)                   Following a query from Councillor Gilbey the size of the amenity space at the front was clarified, and it was explained that it was not clear in the application how this would be divided between the flat and the proposed new building.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(8)                   Councillor Hyde explained that the site visit had clearly demonstrated the importance of the gap in the wider context of the conservation area, and how the loss of this would be detrimental. She stated that she would support the Officer recommendation.

(9)                   Councillor Carol Theobald echoed these comments, and expressed concern about the potential impact on other properties in the area.

(10)               Councillor Jones noted that the commercial premises was a very well regarded local business, he was of the view the loss of the gap would not be outweighed by the gains on this site; he stated he would support the Officer recommendation.

(11)               A vote was taken and planning permission was unanimously refused for the reasons set out below.

155.4     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 be MINDED TO REFUSE planning permission for the reasons set out below.

      i.                   The proposed dwelling, by reason of its design, footprint, depth, materials, and prominent location, would form an unsympathetic and excessively dominant extension to the existing building at No. 108 Preston Drove, which would form an incongruous and visually intrusive element in the street scene that would fill the existing characteristic open space between the rear of No. 108 and the side of No. 191 Havelock Road, detracting from the character and appearance of the Preston Park Conservation Area and represents overdevelopment of the site. As such, the proposal is contrary to policies QD1, QD2, QD3, QD14 and HE6 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

    ii.                   The proposed dwelling, by reason of its siting, proximity, height and orientation, would cause significant loss of light and have an overbearing impact upon No. 191 Havelock Road and the rear garden of No. 106 Preston Drove and, as such, is contrary to policies QD14 and QD27 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

  iii.                   The proposed dwelling would provide cramped internal accommodation, which does not comply with Lifetime Homes Standards, and provides insufficient usable private outdoor amenity space for a unit which is suitable for family accommodation. The proposed development is therefore contrary to policies HO5, HO13 and QD27 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

  iv.                   The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposal would not, by reason of the loss of existing storage space, jeopardise the future operation and viability of the retail unit at No. 108 Preston Drove, cause detriment to the visual amenity of the area by reason of inadequate refuse storage and consequent reliance on external storage, and adversely affect the character and appearance of the area and, as such, the proposal is contrary to policy QD27 and HE6 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.