Agenda item - BH2013/01254 - 18 Wellington Road, Brighton - Full Planning

Demolition of existing building and construction of two separate 3 storey high blocks comprising 31 one, two and three bedroom flats together with associated car parking, cycle parking amenity space and bin storage.

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE

Demolition of existing building and construction of two separate 3 storey high blocks comprising 31 one, two and three bedroom flats together with associated car parking, cycle parking amenity space and bin storage.

1)                      The Senior Planning Officer, Liz Arnold, introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to photographs, plans and elevational drawings; reference was also made the matters on the Late List. The application site related to the eastern side of Wellington Road, and sought demolition for the existing building and construction of two separate blocks; the site currently comprised two large Victorian villas. There was vehicular access at from Wellington Road, and it was noted the surrounding area was a mixture of contemporary and period styles. In 2012 the Committee had granted an extension to limit for full planning for a part build and part conversion scheme. In respect of the current application both of the new blocks would be three storeys in height and provide 6 off-street parking spaces and cycle spaces. The site had been vacant for some time, but despite this the loss of the community facility would need to be justified in line with policy, and the applicant had failed to sufficiently do this as part of the application. It was noted that given the mix of styles in the road the scale of the new buildings was considered appropriate; however, it was considered that aspects of the roof form were contrived and poor design. It was added that 47% of the accommodation would be affordable, but some of the mitigation measures to prevent overlooking would lead to a poor standards of accommodation for future occupiers. It was also felt that the loss of the open space had not been justified, and the proposed spaces would not be usable. For the reasons set out in the report the application was recommended for refusal.

Public Speakers and Questions

2)                      Mr Paul Burgess spoke in support of the application in his capacity as the agent for the scheme; he stated that the recent examination of the City Plan had shown a shortfall in the number of proposed new homes and the Council would have to look at providing this shortfall on urban fringe sites. With this in mind it was noted that sites such as this could be key to breaching this gap, and it was also noted there were 11 other community facilities in close proximity to the site, and there was already permission in place to build across the width of the site.

3)                      In response to Councillor Shanks it was explained by Mr Burgess that the existing building did not lend itself to conversion in a very easy manner, and the proposed development would be in a similar style.

4)                      At this point the Senior Solicitor clarified matters in relation to the prior approval for demolition on the site, and explained that the property was not in a conservation area, and therefore did not need conservation area consent for demolition; however, before any demolition an application had to be made for prior approval for the method of demolition. Such an application had been granted permission in 2011 and at the present time the building could be demolished without any further consent.

Questions for Officers

5)                      In was confirmed for Councillor Carol Theobald that the loss of the community facility was still a valid reason for refusal despite the building being empty for over 10 years.

6)                      It was confirmed for Councillor Shanks that the previous approval at Committee had included an element of community facility.

Debate and Decision Making Process

7)                      Councillor Duncan noted that the issues raised by the applicant were not material to the consideration before the Committee; furthermore he was not of the view that this would justify the development. He highlighted his concerns in relation to accessibility and lifetime homes and stated he would support the Officer recommendation.

8)                      Councillor Hyde noted that permission was already in place to retain the existing building, and when the Committee had granted to time limit extension Members had supported the retention of the original building as an important feature in the local area. Non-designated heritage assets such as this should be valued and for this reason she would support the Officer recommendation.

9)                      Councillor Shanks noted her concerns that the building could still be knocked down regardless of the decision of the Committee. The Head of Development Control noted that the building was not protected and in terms of the demolition the Council were only able to consider the method of demolition; however, it was noted that the building was a candidate for the local list. The Council also remained open to talks with the applicant in relation to the future of the site.

10)                 Mr Gowans noted that the CAG had welcomed the application subject to details such as the dormers.

11)                 Councillor Gilbey noted she was concerned that open space would be lost, and as such she would support the Officer recommendation.

12)                 A vote was taken and the Officer recommendation to refuse the application was agreed on a vote of 8 to 3.

117.3    RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration the recommendation and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in section 11 and resolves to REFUSE planning permission for the reasons set out below:

Reasons for Refusal:

        i.                 The applicant has failed to justify the loss of the community facility, which in the absence of sufficient evidence to demonstrate the contrary, is considered to have the potential to make a vital contribution to the wellbeing of the local community and quality of life of the neighbourhood. The proposal is therefore considered in conflict with Policy HO20 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

      ii.                 The proposed development by virtue of the design and size of the proposed central dormer window on Block A, the siting of the front outer dormer windows on Block A, the poorly-articulated main entrances, the protrusion of the lift shaft above the roof of Block A and its siting and the provision of large areas of untraditional flat roof form would result in a development which would be of detriment to the visual amenities of the Wellington Road street scene and the wider area. As such the proposal is contrary to policies QD1, QD2, QD4 and QD5 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

    iii.                 The applicant has failed to justify the loss of the existing open space, which in the absence of sufficient evidence to the contrary is considered to have the potential to make a contribution to the well-being of the community. In addition insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that an adequate level and quality of usable communal amenity space and usable private amenity space would be provided to meet the needs of and provide adequate living conditions for future occupiers. As such the proposal is contrary to policies HO5 and QD20 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan and policy CP16 of the Brighton & Hove City Plan Part One.

     iv.                 The applicant has failed to demonstrate that a proportion of the proposed residential units would be built to a wheelchair accessible standard. The development is therefore contrary to policy HO13 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

       v.                 Obscured glazing would be provided to the lower half of east facing bedroom windows which would prevent outlook from habitable rooms. In addition the applicant has failed to demonstrate that adequate outlook would be achievable from bedrooms within the roofspace of the blocks. As such the proposal would provide a poor standard of accommodation harmful to the amenity of future occupiers. As such the proposal is contrary to policy QD27 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

     vi.                 The applicant has failed to demonstrate that sufficient protection would be afforded to the existing nature conservation features on the site and that suitable enhancement and compensatory measures would be provided. The development is therefore contrary to policies QD17 and QD18 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan and SPD11 Nature Conservation and Development.

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.

      ii.                 The applicant is encouraged to commence discussions with the Local Planning Authority in order to identify whether there are alternatives to demolition which would preserve the building.

Note: Councillor Randall was not present during the consideration and vote on the application.