Agenda item - BH2013/03162 - Flat 3, 5 Preston Park Avenue, Brighton - Full Planning

Conversion of first and second floor maisonette to form 2no self-contained flats incorporating rooflights to front and rear elevation and flat roof.

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

A.                                                                 Conversion of first and second floor maisonette to form 2no self-contained flats incorporating rooflights to front and rear elevation and flat roof.

(1)                   The Area Planning Manager introduced the report and gave a presentation by reference to photographs, plans and elevational drawings. The application site related to a two storey building on the eastern side of Preston Park Avenue that was currently divided into flats; information was also provided on the current arrangements for refuse storage and it was noted that the application was in the Preston Park Conservation Area. A similar application had been refused in August 2012 for the conversion of the first and second floor maisonette into two flats for reasons relating to the refuse storage. The application as submitted had sought to address the reasons for refusal by relocating the bin storage closer to the main building; however, it had later been established that the proposed site of the cycle storage was not in the ownership of the property, and a condition was recommended as part of the application that cycle parking be secured as part of the scheme. The main issues related to the impact on the conservation area; the standards of accommodation; sustainability and transport issues. The scheme was considered to be compliant with policy as the sub-division would allow for the retention of one larger family sized unit. The issues in relation to the previous application had been the position of the bin and cycle storage, and the application sought to rectify this through the creation on an area of hardstanding with space for 4 refuse bins, and it was noted that the inspector’s decision in relation to the appeal of the refused application had focused on the location materials. The application was recommended for approval for the reasons set out in the report.

Public Speakers & Questions

(2)                   Mr Jon Morris spoke in objection to the application in his capacity as a local resident; he stated that the previous application had been refused in relation to the inappropriate location of the bin store, and he added that residents had been made aware of the changes in relation to the proposed site of the cycle stands. Mr Morris queried the need for an additional refuse bin on the site, and noted that the application proposed no additional bedrooms despite the subdivision of the existing unit. He went on to add that the addition of the cycle stands could make the site a greater target for crime, and explained that the area was already a ‘hotspot’ for bicycle related crimes.

(3)                   In response to Councillor Davey it was confirmed by Mr Morris that he lived in the basement flat of the building; the existing bins were used by all the flats in the property, and the proposed siting would lead to the removal of mature planting in the garden.

Questions for Officers

(4)                   In response to Councillor Duncan it was confirmed that there would be an increased intensity of use if the application were granted and this would warrant the inclusion of an additional refuse bin; it was also added that consideration of the number of bins was not material to the application, but only the provision of the hardstanding for the bins.

(5)                   In response to Councillor Davey it was confirmed that the location of the cycle stands would be dealt with through the appropriate condition, and any issues in relation to land ownership would be a private matter.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(6)                   Councillor Davey noted that he could understand the concerns of the local residents, but he felt that the view of the Inspector had been made clear in relation to the hardstanding; with this in mind he stated he would vote in support of the Officer recommendation.

(7)                   A vote was taken and the Officer recommendation permission be granted was agreed on a vote of 11 in support with 1 against.

129.3    RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration the recommendation and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in paragraph 11 and resolved to GRANT planning permission subject to conditions.