Agenda item - BH2012/03254 - Workshop, 1A Marmion Road, Hove - Full Planning

Demolition of warehouse and erection of 4no two bedroom terraced houses and 1no office unit (B1).

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Demolition of warehouse and erection of 4no two bedroom terraced houses and 1no office unit (B1).

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

(2)                   A presentation was given by the Area Planning Manager (West) by reference to photographs, plans, elevational drawings and an unverified concept image. The existing warehouse adjoined a cottage to the north, and there was a commercial garage to the east. The proposal was for four 2 bedroom properties, and a B1 office unit to replace the loss of the existing business space. The site had been marketed since May 2012, and it was considered that rate was reasonable. The proposal would include the provision of 4 parking spaces and it been agreed 2 would be allocated to 2 of the residential units, and the other 2 for use by the commercial premises. The proposed building would be to the line of the street, and the doorways would be recessed for ease of access. Each of the units would have access to cycle storage, and there would be amenity space for the residential units, with the accommodation spread across three storeys; the living rooms would be on the top floor with private terraces, and the habitual rooms would be located at the front of the properties away from the noise of the car repair garage to the rear.

(3)                   The level of the road dropped from left to right and the applicant had sought to address this by stepping down the buildings in height. It was explained that in terms of its height the adjoining cottage was an anomaly, and the height of the proposed scheme would be comparable with surrounding properties, but it was acknowledged the proposals would be taller than the cottage. The residential units would be painted render, and the commercial unit would be finished in brick. The private front balconies would have screening. It was considered the modern design would sit well in the wider area, and there was already a similar scheme in nearby Stoneham Road. Officers had raised no objection to the form and the scale, but the position in relation to the marketing of the commercial unit had been discussed with the Economic Development Team who were satisfied with the undertaking. The application was recommended for approval for the reasons set out in the report.

Public Speakers and Questions

(4)                   Ms Spearpoint spoke in objection to the scheme in her capacity as a local resident. She stated that she had lived at the adjoining cottage for almost 20 years, and that as well as the objection from both local Councillors 20 residents had objected to the scheme. Concerns related to height and bulk of the proposals, and the unsuitability for the area. The scheme would be overbearing; overlook other properties from the balconies and block out light to the cottage. The properties were also not set back from the road like many others in the Poets Corner area, and it was felt that the nature of the car repair garage behind would cause further issues in relation to safety. Ms Spearpoint stated that it was the view of residents that the historic building should be preserved and renovated rather than demolished. In closing she added that the proposal was not sympathetic to the area.

(5)                   Following a query from Councillor Davey it was explained by Ms Spearpoint that the existing building was used for storage on a daily basis.

(6)                   Mr Turner spoke in support of the application in his capacity as the agent and stated that the proposal would be built alongside the cottage with no effect in terms of overshadowing or overlooking. The proposal had been designed to respond to the site conditions, and the design had purposely sort to avoid ‘pastiche’ by reinterpreting a traditional terrace form with similar materials and characteristics. The site would provide 8 employment spaces, and in closing it was stated this was an attractive scheme that responded sensitively to the wider area.

(7)                   In response to a query from Councillor Mac Cafferty about the marketing of the site, it was explained by Mr Turner that this had been undertaken as a previous refusal on the site had drawn attention to this area. In this case dialogue between the Council and the agent had determined that 6 months was an adequate period of marketing for the site. In response to a further query from Councillor Hawtree it was clarified by Mr Turner that he had no knowledge as to whether the building was currently in use.

(8)                   Following a query from Councillor Phillips it was explained by Mr Turner that the 4 spaces had been provided as they were currently in situ, and it was considered appropriate to retain them.

(9)                   In response to a query from Councillor Hyde it was explained by Mr Turner the process used to design a scheme that would be considerate of neighbouring properties.

(10)               Mr Turner provided more information in response to Councillor Davey in relation to overshadowing and overlooking of the cottage and stated that the set backs and line angles of the roof had been designed such that it would not affect the cottage. The only overlooking would be front to front which was common in the wider area.

Questions for Officers

(11)               Officers confirmed the total amenity space of the residential units in response to Councillor Wells. It was also clarified for Councillor Gilbey that this included the balconies on the second floor, and the commercial unit would also have the same balconies as the residential units.

(12)               Councillor Mac Cafferty asked for more information in relation to the marketing of the scheme, and in particular why a period of 6 months had been accepted when the planning authority would normally seek a period of 12 months. In response it was explained that this application was not requesting the removal of all employment space, and instead proposed retention; it was also considered that the current employment potential of the existing site would be less than what was proposed by the scheme. Councillor Mac Cafferty went on to ask about B8 use at the site, and the Head of Development Control explained that B8 use at the site would be considered more difficult due to servicing issues. Officers considered that the evidence base in this application was not significant enough to resist redevelopment of the site, and the proposals included employment space.

(13)               Councillor Hyde pointed to the anecdotal evidence provided by Ms Spearpoint that the site was still in use, and asked about the potential to refurbish the existing building. In response the Head of Development Control advised that the planning authority had no evidence that the site was in use, and Officers had consulted the Economic Development Team who considered the marketed rate was competitive for this kind of unit in the city.

(14)               Councillor Davey asked about the historic use of the site, and it was explained that Officers had information that it was a disused warehouse – they had not been made aware it was an active unit.

(15)               Councillor Hyde asked why the report had not made mention that the inclusion of the additional storey was not in keeping with the wider area. Officers explained that the Case Officer had been of the view that this would be in keeping with the area.

(16)               In was clarified for Councillor Gilbey that the scheme would be set back by two metres from the rear boundary, and Environmental Protection did not have any concerns with the relationship between the residential units and the car repair garage.

(17)               In was confirmed for Councillor Hamilton that the scheme had been designed such that it would have minimal impact on the light to the car repair garage at the rear.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(18)               Councillor Carden stated that buildings such as the existing one on the site would have a use in the future, and it was important they were not taken out of use.

(19)               Councillor Hyde expressed her dislike of the scheme; the development would be exceedingly detrimental to the adjoining cottage, and would do nothing to enhance it. She did not feel that the entrances directly onto the street were appropriate for the area, and that the bulk and form did not comply with policy.

(20)               Councillor Mac Cafferty also noted that he had similar concerns to Councillor Carden, but he had less objection to the design. He stated that although the scheme would retain employment space this would be of a much lower quantity, and he wanted to seek to retain employment space.

(21)               Councillor Carol Theobald stated that she thought the proposal was too large and too high, and would not be in keeping with the wider street scene. She also expressed doubt about the viability of the commercial space, and felt that the existing building could be renovated.

(22)               Councillor Davey stated that the unit had not been properly in use for some time, and the site was not suitable for intensive commercial use; it would also be an important means provide additional family housing.

(23)               Councillor Hamilton stated it was important to consider reasonable marketing, and he was of the view that mixed residential and commercial often presented problems. He considered that the design was incongruous, and not in keeping with the area, and he would not support the Officer recommendation.

(24)               Councillor Cobb echoed the previous comments, and stated that smoking by staff in the commercial premises outside could be unpleasant.

(25)               Councillor Jones stated that the scheme was overdevelopment of the site, and considered that the amenity space would not be adequate for families; he added that he currently of two minds.

(26)               Councillor Gilbey stated that the footprint of the units was too small, and this had forced the applicant to add an additional storey; she stated she would not support the Officer recommendation.

(27)               Before a vote was taken the Head of Development Control stated that the existing building was not an historic asset, and it was common for the planning authority to approve schemes with inter-looking across the street.

(28)               A vote was taken and planning permission was refused on a vote of 9 to 3. Councillor Hyde proposed reasons for refusal and these were seconded by Councillor Mac Cafferty; a short adjournment was then held to allow Councillor Hawtree, Councillor Hyde, Councillor Mac Cafferty the Lawyer, the Head of Development Control and the Area Planning Manager (West) to draft the reasons for the refusal in full. A recorded vote was then taken with the proposed reasons for refusal and Councillors Hawtree, Jones, Hyde, Carden, Cobb, Gilbey, Hamilton, Mac Cafferty and Carol Theobald voted that permission be refused and Councillor Davey, Phillips and Wells voted that planning permission be granted.

155.5     RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken the Officer recommendation to approve into consideration but resolves to REFUSE planning permission for the reasons set out below.

      i.                   The proposed development by reason of its detailed design and unsympathetic rood form would create an awkward visual relationship with the adjoining dwelling to the north (The Cottage) and would fail to relate positively to the prevailing character of the surrounding area.  In addition the amenity space is considered to be insufficient.  The development is therefore contrary to policies  QD1, QD2 and HO5 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan 2004 and to the advice in Section 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework.  

    ii.                   The Local Planning Authority is not convinced that the redundancy test has been satisfied.  Insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate this.  The application is therefore contrary to policy EM3 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan 2004.