Agenda item - BH2012/03286 - Land rear of 140-146 Springfield Road, Brighton - Extension to Time Limit - Full Planning

Application to extend time limit for implementation of previous application BH2008/03194 for the erection of a terrace of 4no three bedroom houses.

Recommendation – MINDED TO GRANT

Application to extend time limit for implementation of previous application BH2008/03194 for the erection of a terrace of 4no three bedroom houses.

(1)                   The Senior Planning Officer, Kathryn Boggiano, introduced the report and gave a presentation by reference to photographs, plans and elevational drawings. The site was located to the north of the railway line and London Road Railway Station, and formed part of a wider piece of land to the west. Planning permission had been refused by the Planning Authority in 2006 for 8 flats on the site, and the decision was upheld at appeal. In 2008 the original application was refused by the Planning Authority, but an appeal was allowed by the Inspector, and the application sought an extension to the time limit of the previous approval by the Inspector. There had been 16 objections received – none from statutory consultees; a further two were on the Late List, and an additional one from Councillor Kennedy.

(2)                   Government guidance stated that when dealing with such applications the principle of development of the site had been judged to be acceptable, and it was necessary to consider any material changes to policy or site characteristics. The NPPF also advised Planning Authorities to encourage sustainable development where it was not considered there were any policies which would outweigh the decision of the Inspector. Since the approval by the Inspector an updated Open Space Study had been produced which was a background document but not in itself adopted policy, and this open space with categorised as E, when A is the highest rating and G is the lowest. The emerging City Plan did have some weight on the application, but there were no development area policies in the City Plan which related to this site. It was not considered that the updated 2011 Open Space Study outweighed the decision of the Inspector as the principle of development on the site had been established. Since the approval a CPZ had been approved in principle for the area and it would now be necessary to condition for a car free development; however, the contribution towards sustainable transport would no longer be required under the recession measures taken by the Council. The application was recommended to be minded to grant for the reasons set out in the report.

Public Speakers and Questions

(3)                   Councillor Littman spoke in his capacity as the Local Ward Councillor. He stated that his fellow Ward Councillor Amy Kennedy had also objected to the application, and that Officers decision to recommend the application for approval was due to the previous decision of the Inspector, and the potential financial implication of an appeal decision. The Committee was asked to refuse the application based on policies in the Local Plan; the NPPF and to some extent the emerging City Plan. The site was part of a green corridor of land between the railway lines and the rear gardens of the properties on Springfield Road, and it was important to protect such land. The proposals also failed to meet the standards for new development.

(4)                   Mr Pickup spoke in support of the application in his capacity as the agent for the applicant. He stated that the proposal was the same as the one granted by the Inspector at appeal and the site had not come forward partly due to the recession and partly due to personal circumstances for the applicant, but this did not mean it would not be implemented in future if approved. It was highlighted that the site layout and area would be the same in this application, and the report highlighted that the Case Officer was satisfied there were no significant policy changes to warrant refusal of the scheme. The conditions were the same with one additional one in relation to the car-free development. The Committee were asked to grant the application.

Questions for Officers

(5)                   Councillor Jones asked about the relationship of the pub garden and smoking area to the proposed site. In response Officers explained that there had been debate at the public inquiry in relation to the pub, and the pub had also objected to the scheme; to address this the Inspector had requested the removal of a window on the flank elevation.

(6)                   Councillor Jones went on to ask why the loss of the greenway had been given so little consideration by the Inspector. In response it was explained that the Inspector had not refused the scheme based on the loss of the greenway. Nothing had changed to allow Officers to disregard the view of the Inspector, and this could not be revisited as part of the application.

(7)                   Councillor Bowden asked for more information in relation to the position of the emerging City Plan in relation to this application. In response the Local Development Manager explained that the emerging City Plan was considered material, and although the City Plan took a harder line in terms of open spaces this was not significant enough to warrant refusal. There was policy in the City Plan in relation to sustainable development; however, this needed to be tested at examination, and at this stage it could not be given full weight. The NPPF also gave a strong emphasis on allowing development. The Senior Planning Officer also highlighted that the Inspector had not simply disregarded policy, but made an assessment that that the application complied with it.

(8)                   Councillor Carol Theobald asked about the access to the site, and in response it was explained that the access was pedestrian only. In response to a further question it was explained the Inspector had been satisfied that difficulties in relation to building could be dealt with by condition.

(9)                   Councillor Robins queried some of the language used in relation to the proposed CPZ as the final decision was still due to be made by the Transport Committee. The Principal Transport Officer confirmed that the CPZ had been approved in principle, and it was acceptable to apply a condition in relation to car free development if there was the likelihood of an approval. The Senior Solicitor clarified that the condition was appropriate, but noted that Councillor Robins had queried the language used in the report. Officers noted that the language could be misleading and clarified that the CPZ had been agreed in principle on 15 January 2013, subject to detailed design and consultation. Councillor Robins reiterated he was not satisfied with some of the language used.

(10)               Councillor Davey expressed concern about issues in relation to Environmental Protection and asked how these would be properly addressed. In response Officers explained that these would be dealt with under other appropriate non-planning legislation.

(11)               Councillor Gilbey asked if an approval on this site could set a precedent for similar sites in the city. In response it was explained that this was a unique site with a complex planning history; furthermore other open space sites in the city did not already have planning permissions.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(12)               Councillor Hyde noted the opposition to the application, but highlighted that the principle of development on the site had been determined by the decision of the Inspector; this view had to given a significant weight. The previous decision by the Inspector had had financial implications for the Council, and Councillor Hyde stated she saw little alternative but to support the application.

(13)               Councillor Carol Theobald stated she did not like the scheme in relation to the location; loss of open space and the access, but noted that it would be difficult to refuse based on the ruling of the Inspector.

(14)               Councillor Mac Cafferty highlighted the difficult position of the Committee, and stated it was wrong that views of residents and elected Councillors were ‘over-stepped’ by the Inspector.

(15)               Councillor Bowden noted that the scheme was not popular with local residents, and he found the decision a difficult one.

(16)               Councillor Jones felt the application was contrary to policy, and he agreed with the points made by Councillor Hyde; however, he could not support the application and would vote against the Officer recommendation.

(17)               A vote was taken and planning permission was granted on a vote of 5 to 3 with 4 abstentions.

168.4    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 that it is MINDED TO GRANT planning permission subject to a s106 Agreement and the Conditions and Informatives as set out in the report.