Agenda item - BH2012/03364 -1 Manor Road, Brighton - Full Planning Permission

Demolition of existing chapel, garages and extensions to Villa Maria and St Augustine's buildings. Change of use from convent boarding house (Sui generis) and refurbishment of existing buildings Villa Maria and St Augustine's to provide 16no. flats. Erection of 6no. new buildings ranging from 2no. to 3no. storeys providing 22no. houses and 8no. flats. A total of 46no. dwellings to be created with associated car and cycle parking, landscaping and other works including ecological enhancements.

RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

Ward  Affected: East Brighton

              Demolition of existing chapel, garages and extensions to Villa Maria and St Augustine's buildings. Change of use from convent boarding house (Sui generis) and refurbishment of existing buildings Villa Maria and St Augustine's to provide 16no. flats. Erection of 6no. new buildings ranging from 2no. to 3no. storeys providing 22no. houses and 8no. flats. A total of 46no. Dwellings to be created with associated car and cycle parking, landscaping and other works including ecological enhancements.

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

Introduction from Officer(s)

(2)          The Senior Planning Officer, Mr Foster gave a detailed presentation based on the report detailing the proposals and treatment of the retained on site buildings and those to be demolished by reference to photographs plans elevational drawings and block plans of each of the constituent buildings. Views across the site from the north east corner, Manor Road, Bristol Gardens from Bristol Mews to the East, Prince Regent Close and from Robin Dene were also shown. Details of a further representation received were given and details of the including the Officer’s response to it were set out in the circulated “Late Representations List.”

(3)          The application proposed a total of 46 residential units of which 18 would be affordable units. The design sought to respect the existing locally listed buildings and was of a scale and form in keeping with the other buildings on site whilst featuring modern design details, and with siting that followed the pattern and layout of adjoining residential development, it was considered acceptable and that it would not have a detrimental impact on visual amenity. The proposal would achieve a high level of sustainability, achieving Level 4 of the Code for Sustainable Homes, and the development would also have no adverse impact on the highway, minded to grant approval was therefore recommended. A condition to ensure the development attained “Lifetime Homes Standard” would in secured by condition should planning permission be granted.

              Public Speakers and Questions

(4)          Mr Roberts spoke on behalf of neighbouring objectors setting out their objections to the scheme stating that whilst they no objections to provision of housing on site they considered that there were inaccuracies in the submitted drawings, which meant that the site lines as indicated were not reliable. The resulting development would therefore result in an over development built as it was up to the existing walls, this destroying the existing vista of the Kemptown Conservation Area. It would give rise to overlooking and noise for neighbouring residents and would also have a detrimental impact on wildlife.

(5)          Councillor Gill Mitchell spoke in her capacity as a Local Ward Councillor setting out her objections to the scheme and re-iterating those of local residents. Councillor Mitchell considered that the development would have an adverse impact on the residential amenity of neighbours by reason of overlooking, significant loss of privacy and overshadowing. The development was considered to be of an unacceptably high density and would have a negative visual impact. It was also considered that the number of trees to be lost as a result of the on site works was regrettable. The highway arrangements needed to seen in the context of the area as a whole. The junction of Church Road/Bristol Gardens was considered to be dangerous, the proposed entrance/exit onto Bristol Gardens sited near to that junction would add to road safety concerns.

(6)          Mr Wojulewski spoke on behalf of the applicants in support of their application. He explained that the applicants had spent a lot of time trying to get the scheme “right” and been in discussions for some time in order to address the concerns raised by neighbouring residents in respect of density and potential overlooking among other matters. The density of the scheme had been reduced and a high quality scheme which would provide a mixture of housing including 3 fully accessible dwellings would result. The scheme sought to sympathetically preserve those buildings which were to be retained on site in the context of the new buildings. The affordable housing would be under the stewardship of a well respected housing provider.

            Questions to Officers

(7)          Councillor Mrs C Theobald sought clarification regarding the location of the Juliette balconies to some of the dwellings as she had some concerns that these could result in overlooking.

(8)          Councillor Hyde referred to the location of some of the windows facing towards neighbouring properties seeking confirmation as to whether these would be located below the level of the boundary wall. It was confirmed that they would not although they be located at 4 metres distance from it.

(9)          Councillor K Norman sought more details regarding the number and species of trees to be removed from the site during in consequence of the development, how many would fall within the proposed building envelope and details of the number that would be replaced, also whether they would be like for like e.g., a sycamore with a sycamore. He considered this was important in view of the level of screening provided by different trees.

(10)       Councillor Mac Cafferty referred to the proposed informative intended to protect the biodiversity of the site. It was agreed that this would be attached to any decision notice.

(11)       Councillor Gilbey sought clarification of the distance between properties to be built in the north east corner of the site and those outside the development site in neighbouring Robin Dene, in particular the proximity of windows to the side elevation.

(12)       Councillor Davey referred to the transport concerns raised by residents and by Councillor Mitchell seeking confirmation of any measures to be put into place to address or mitigate against them. In answer to questions by the Chair, Councillor Hawtree it was confirmed that it was proposed to bring  a 20mph speed limit into force within the area.

(13)       Councillor Hamilton referred to Block C, the Villa Maria building with blocks B1and B2, it was explained that these would be joined and would be seen as a side elevation to the villa itself.

(14)       Councillor Mrs C Theobald referred to the Chapel building enquiring whether it had ever been used for public worship or had been open to the public. It was confirmed that the building had been used primarily by nuns attached to the convent on site.

            Debate and Decision Making Process

(15)       Councillor Wells stated that he considered that the problems of potential overlooking from the site had been addressed. A “green lung” had been retained within the site and the development had been well designed and he supported the scheme.

(16)       Councillor Gilbey stated that whilst she welcomed the proposed use of the site she felt unable to support it due the close proximity of some of the buildings to the perimeter wall which she considered would result in overlooking and loss of amenity to the existing neighbouring dwellings.

(17)       Councillor Jones stated that he considered that there was a disjoint between the number of buildings proposed on site and the possible impact this could have in terms of overlooking.

(18)       Councillor Mrs C Theobald also expressed concern that she did not consider that issues of potential overlooking had been fully addressed.

(19)       Councillor K Norman stated that he had some concerns regarding removal of trees from the site and protection of the remaining on site trees during the construction process. His preference would have been for development of a lower density.

(20)       Councillor Davey supported the scheme which he considered to be well thought out, it respected the listed buildings on site and would enhance the area.

(21)       Councillor Mac Cafferty stated on balance he considered that the measures taken to mitigate against any negative impact from the scheme had been addressed.

(22)       Councillor Hyde requested that an additional condition be added to secure protection in respect of ensuring that trees were replaced with mature specimens which would provide greening and screening to the site more rapidly than saplings.

(23)       A vote was taken and of the 11 Members present at the meeting minded to grant planning permission was given on a vote of 5 to 4 with 2 abstentions.

204.2  RESOLVED - That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in Section 11 and the policies and guidance in section 7 and resolves it is MINDED TO GRANT planning permission subject to the completion of a s106 Agreement and to the Conditions and Informatives also set out in section 11of the report and to the additional condition and the additional informative set out below:

            Additional Condition:

            A minimum of 33%of the trees proposed as part of the landscape plan as required by Condition 13 shall be Extra Heavy Standard (14 - 16cm girth/rootball)

            Reason: To enhance the appearance of the development in the interest of the visual amenity of the area and to comply with policies QD1 and QD15 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

Additional Informative:

            The applicant is advised that under Part 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, disturbance to nesting  birds must not occur and they must accord with the requirements of the Habitat Regulations with regard to bats which are protected under both from disturbance, damage or destroying a bat roost.