Agenda item - BH2013/01985 - 36 Upper Rock Gardens, Brighton - Full Planning Permission

Demolition of upper ground floor rear extension and staircase and erection of lower and upper ground floor rear extensions with staircase.

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE

Demolition of upper ground floor rear extension and staircase and erection of lower and upper ground floor rear extensions with staircase.

(1)                   The Area Planning Manager introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to photographs, plans and elevational drawings. The site was located in the East Cliff Conservation Area, and the history of the site was outlined in the report. Particular attention was drawn to a refusal for a rear extension in 2012; this scheme was a revision of that refusal and sought the demolition of the upper ground floor and the erection of a new upper and lower ground floor. A letter of support had also been received from Councillor Powell. The main considerations related to the impact of the design on the parent building and the impact on the street scene and the character of the Conservation Area. The proposal would be deeper and wider at the upper and lower ground floor levels, and whilst this was considered more appropriate than the existing form, the structure would still appear over-dominate – projecting 9.8 metres to the rear. There were further inappropriate elements to the scheme as the rear extended onto St. Mary’s Place and the impact of neighbour amenity and the position of the windows would increase the loss of the light. For the reasons set out in the report the application was recommended for refusal.

(2)                   It was noted that there had been a public speaker registered to speak in support of the applicant, but they had been unable to attend.

Questions for Officers

(3)                   Councillor Ken Norman made reference to the letter from Councillor Powell, and asked for further explanation in relation the existing rear extensions of neighbouring properties. In response the Area Planning Manager explained that there were some existing extensions which did not have any planning history; in these circumstances Officers had to assume there was no approval and they had been built before the adoption of the Local Plan. It was also confirmed for Councillor Ken Norman that no.33A most likely related to a basement flat.

(4)                   Councillor Wells referenced the size of the extension at no. 34, and in response the Area Planning Manager explained that without the planning history Officers did not have details of the proportions; however, given the substantial size it was unlikely it would be supported by Officers.

(5)                   It was confirmed for Councillor Sykes that the width of the outrigger for no. 36 was the same as the other adjoining properties in the street.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(6)                   Councillor Sykes noted that it was important to give careful consideration of the rear of properties, and he agreed with the Officer recommendation that this would constitute overdevelopment and have a detrimental impact to the rear of the property.

(7)                   A vote was taken and planning permission was refused on a vote of 7 to 2 with 1 abstention.

68.5       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 by reason of its scale, design, depth and detailing would result in an overly dominant addition that would have a significantly detrimental impact upon the appearance and character of the building, the wider terrace and the East Cliff Conservation Area, contrary to policies HE6 and QD14 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

            ii.           The proposed development, by reason its height, design, and depth would result in a significantly overbearing impact, a loss of light and an unacceptable sense of enclosure towards the adjoining property, No.35 Upper Rock Gardens. As such the proposal is contrary to policies QD14 and QD27 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.