Agenda item - BH2013/02349 - Land to South of 32 Cambridge Grove, Hove - Full Planning Permission

Erection of 3no bedroom dwelling.

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE

Erection of 3no bedroom dwelling.

 

(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.

 

A.                                                                 BH2013/02349 - Land to South of 32 Cambridge Grove, Hove - Full Planning Permission - Erection of 3no bedroom dwelling.

 

(1)                   The Area Planning Manager, Nicola Hurley, introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to plans, photographs and elevational drawings. The application site related to a plot of land to the north of no. 76 The Drive, Hove; the site was accessed at the lower level from Cambridge Grove. It was noted that the site was located in the Willett Estate Conservation Area, and the Grade II listed buildings in The Drive/Cromwell Road were located to the south. The application sought the erection of a two storey property with bedrooms and a bathroom on the lower ground floor and the living space on the ground floor. Attention was also drawn to matters on the Late List and an additional letter of support received from Councillor Phillips.

 

(2)                   The main considerations related to design; the impact on the Conservation Area and listed buildings; the impact on the adjacent accommodation; the standard of the accommodation and sustainable transport. It was highlighted that there had been refusals for schemes on the site dating back to 2000, and there had been a scheme refused by the Committee earlier in the year. This scheme was largely similar and would appear as a single storey from the road; the major change related to the proposed orientation of the building; however, the principle of the dwelling remained the same. It was considered that the modern design would be out of keeping with the surrounding area, and the Heritage Officer felt that it would have a harmful impact on the nearby mews. Furthermore the design of the front boundary wall would not properly address the surroundings and would be out of keeping. There was also concern in relation to the impact on amenity as the garden would be set at a lower level and there was concern that the height of the fence was unacceptable and would create a sense of enclosure. For the reasons set out in the report the applicant was recommended for refusal.

 

Public Speakers and Questions

 

(3)                   Mr Phillips spoke in support of the application in his capacity as the architect. He stated that he would address the four reasons for refusal in the report in turn. The scheme sought to protect the openness of the area, and 50% of the site was free to view, and only the southern part of the site would be occupied. It was noted that the neighbouring buildings were up to five storeys high, and the proposed building would only appear as a single storey from street level. Mr Phillips went to state that the Committee had previously granted schemes of contemporary design, and the proposed design and materials would add to the sense of light. Attention was also drawn to a similar scheme that had been approved close to the site. In closing the letters of support from Local Ward Councillors were highlighted.

 

Questions for Officers

 

(4)                   In response to a query from Councillor Gilbey the Area Planning Manager drew attention to the committee report to highlight the issues in relation to overlooking of no. 32 Cambridge Grove and no. 76 The Drive.

 

(5)                   Councillor Duncan noted that the speaker had drawn attention to a similar scheme and asked for more information in relation to this. In response the Area Planning Manager explained that the site was further east, and it was not identical in terms of the features of the site; its surroundings and it was outside the Conservation Area. In relation to this application Officers were recommending refusal in terms of the principle of the development and the resulting impact on amenity. Councillor Duncan went on to ask about the reason for refusal in relation to the loss of light and overshadowing; in response it was explained that despite support from the neighbours Officers were still duty bound to assess the impact on amenity, and had to come to a view notwithstanding the representations made.

 

(6)                   Councillor Gilbey asked about the importance of the gap, and the potential for an approval to set precedence for future development on similar sites. The Area Planning Manager explained that the site would be considered on its individual merits, and Officers would stand by the recommendation to refuse.

 

Debate and Decision Making Process

 

(7)                   Councillor Sykes stated that he was minded to disagree with the Officer recommendation and felt that the gap had already been lost by other buildings; the site would only contribute one additional building and the architect had made efforts to minimise the impact. He stated he would not support the Officer recommendation.

 

(8)                   Councillor Duncan stated he was very impressed with the level of community and Ward Councillor support for the application, and noted the long planning history at the site. He stated that he was of the view that the proposal had now reached the stage where it was acceptable.

 

(9)                   Councillor Carol Theobald stated that it was obvious that the gap was an important feature of the area and noted that the planning history in the report went back as far as 1988. She also stated that the earlier appeal decision had been upheld in relation to the impact on the Conservation Area and the adjoining listed building. She added that the extension of the neighbouring properties were not recent additions.

 

(10)               Councillor Jones stated that the architect had worked to address the problems of the difficult site, but he would still be supporting the Officer recommendation.

 

(11)               A vote was taken and planning permission was refused on a vote of 5 to 4 with 1 abstention.

 

68.6       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 development would result in a harmful loss of openness between the Grade II Listed properties on The Drive/Cromwell Road and the mews buildings in Cambridge Grove, to the detriment of the prevailing character and appearance of the Willett Estate Conservation Area, contrary to policies QD2, HE3 and HE6 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

 

            ii.           The development, by reason of its siting and scale as well as the increased height to the boundaries, would appear overly dominant and overbearing, particularly from the neighbouring gardens of Cromwell Road and constitutes a cramped form of development. The proposal would therefore fail to respect or enhance the local context and the positive qualities of the local neighbourhood and would have a negative impact upon the amenity of the adjoining properties, contrary to policies QD1, QD2, QD3 and QD27 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

 

          iii.           The proposed dwelling, by reason of its design, materials and detailing would appear incongruous within the historic mews setting, to the detriment of the Willett Estate Conservation Area, contrary to policies QD1, QD2, QD3. QD5 and HE6 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

 

           iv.           The development, by reason of its siting and scale would result in a loss of light and overshadowing to neighbouring properties, in particular No 32 Cambridge Grove. The proposal would therefore have a harmful impact upon the amenity of these adjoining properties, contrary to policy QD27 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

 

Informatives:

 

              i.           In accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy SS1 of the 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.