Agenda item - BH2013/01836 - Rear of 32 Stanford Avenue, Brighton - Full Planning Permission

Demolition of existing garage and erection of a two storey 1no bedroom house.

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE

Demolition of existing garage and erection of a two storey 1no bedroom house.

(1)                   The Area Planning Manager, Nicola Hurley, introduced this application and gave a presentation by reference to plans, photographs and elevational drawings. The site related to a domestic garage on the eastern side of Stanford Avenue, and was located in the Preston Park Conservation Area. It was noted that an application had been refused earlier in the year for a two storey one bedroom house; the reasons for refusal had related to appropriateness of the site and the impact on neighbouring amenity. Permission was sought for the demolition of the existing garage and the creation of a one bedroom house. The main considerations related to the principle of the development; the impact on the street scene and the Conservation Area; the impact on neighbouring amenity and the standard of accommodation and adherence with Lifetime Homes. The size of the plot was constrained and the resulting proposal was cramped and at odds with the plot. Reference had been made by the applicant’s agent to a scheme at Southdown Road; however, Officers were of the view that there were clear differences with this site in relation to the plot size and the relationship with other buildings. As a free standing dwelling the building would appear more prominent and it sat forward from the boundary line whereas the uniform line of the streetscene was set back. The existing buildings also had a strong architectural unity and the design was considered uncomfortable and incongruous. For the reasons set out in the report the application was recommended for refusal.

Public Speakers and Questions

(2)                   Ms Cattell spoke in support of the application in her capacity as the agent. She stated that the applicant had lived at no. 32 for 20 years and were part of the local community; they had reached a time when they wanted to downsize to release the capital in their property; whilst staying in their local area. There were few smaller properties that they could buy, and the scheme was considered a means to achieve their goals. The application also sought to build on the footprint of the existing garage, and it was noted that the density would be typical of that in the area. The property would not be cramped given the amount of amenity space, and the applicant did neither want nor need anymore space. The house would be set back at the first floor, and the neighbours were also supportive of the scheme. Ms Cattell also noted that the applicant wanted to negotiate a higher boundary for the front of the property to create more usable amenity space. In closing it was noted that the city would not be able to meet its housing need in the next few years and this application provided the opportunity to create a tailor made home to add to the housing stock.

(3)                   In response to a query from Councillor Carol Theobald it was confirmed that the garage was currently used for storage, and the amount of amenity space was confirmed.

Questions for Officers

(4)                   In response to a query from Councillor Wells the Area Planning Manager explained that Officers considered the established building line of the street to be important and this particularly related to line of buildings in Rugby Road.

(5)                   Councillor Duncan referenced the agent’s comments in relation to the wall onto Rugby Road, and asked that if the Committee were minded to grant the application would it be appropriate to add a condition in relation to this; in response the Area Planning Manager confirmed that Officers were of the view that this could not be dealt with by condition.

(6)                   It was confirmed for Councillor Carol Theobald that on rear the upper floor the hallway and bathroom windows would have obscured glazing.

(7)                   It was confirmed for Councillor Sykes that the proposed development line on the first floor projected further forward than the line of the bay windows of the houses on Rugby Road.

(8)                   Councillor Cox asked further questions about the condition of the front wall, and in response the Area Planning Manager explained that Officers would not recommend conditioning this as it would contravene the comments from the Heritage Team.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(9)                   Councillor Carol Theobald stated that the proposed house looked very small and cramped, and she had concerns in relation to the extent of the amenity space; she also felt that the gap between the properties had merit in its own right.

(10)               Councillor Duncan noted that there was a requirement for new housing within the city, and there was a need to look at creative solutions for this. He stated he was swayed by the argument that the applicant wanted to live in the property.

(11)               A vote was taken and planning permission was refused on the Chair’s casting vote with a vote of 5 in support with 5 against.

68.4       RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out and resolves to REFUSE  planning permission.

Reasons for Refusal:

        i.                 The proposed development is considered to represent an uncharacteristic and inappropriate development in excess of what might reasonably be expected to be achieved on this limited plot site. Consequently the proposal represents an over-development of the site to the detriment of the character of the area. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies QD1, QD2 and QD3 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

      ii.                 The proposed dwelling would extend beyond the building line on Rugby Road, and by reason of its scale, height, footprint, positioning and design, would be an unsympathetic and dominant addition to the street scene. As such the development would cause harm to the character and appearance of the Preston Park Conservation Area and thus be contrary to policies QD2, QD3 and HE6 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

    iii.                 The proposed dwelling, by reason of the height and proximity to site boundaries, would represent a cramped and overbearing development within the rear gardens of neighbouring properties on Stanford Avenue. This would be to the detriment of neighbouring amenity which is contrary to policy QD27 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

     iv.                 The development would enable the use of the existing hardstand as a parking space that would jeopardise highway safety, in particular pedestrians that use the public pavement on Rugby Road. There is no proposal for new boundary treatment on the front boundary of the site that would restrict this, and would therefore be contrary to policy TR7 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

Informatives:

        i.                 In accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy SS1 of the Brighton & Hove City Plan Part One (submission document) the approach to making a decision on this planning application has been to apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development.  The Local Planning Authority seeks to approve planning applications which are for sustainable development where possible.

Note: Councillors Littman and Wakefield were not present at the meeting.