Agenda item - BH2013/03247 - 11 Montpelier Villas, Brighton - Full Planning

Demolition of annex adjoining existing maisonette and basement flat and reconstruction of annex to form a third residential unit on the site, along with associated works.

RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

Demolition of annex adjoining existing maisonette and basement flat and reconstruction of annex to form a third residential unit on the site, along with associated works.

(1)                   The Senior Planning Officer, Guy Everest, introduced the report and gave a presentation by reference to photographs, plans and elevational drawings in respect of application BH2013/03247 for full planning permission and BH2013/03248 for listed building consent. He stated that the local amenity society had supported the application, and the site related to a two-storey semi-detached villa; the property was listed and in a conservation area. Permission was sought for the demolition of the rear extension and the reconstruction of the annex. The key changes were the creation of a new basement and the height of the extension. The proposal was considered appropriate, and would provide an acceptable standard of accommodation with off-street parking. The building would abut the shared boundary, but it was considered there would no greater harm to neighbouring amenity than with the existing arrangement. The building would meet code level 3 for sustainability, and was recommended for approval for the reasons set out in the report.

Public Speaker(s) and Questions

(2)                   Ms Tazel Bahcehli spoke in opposition to the application in her capacity at the agent acting on behalf on one of the neighbours. She explained she represented the neighbour who shared the boundary wall, and highlighted that the application was for reconstruction rather than a conversion, and if granted there was concern in relation to the protection of the neighbour during the construction period. There was no evidence that the tree in the neighbour’s garden would notbe harmed, and the tree currently protected the amenity for the neighbour; as well as policy seeking to protect trees. The amount of amenity space had been considered inappropriate in a previous application, and it was felt other previous reasons for refusal had been overlooked. The new building would also have three households instead of one, and there would be harmful impact on the conservation area. The extension was considered ‘clumsy’ and contravened the local plan; nor did it protect living conditions for future occupiers.

(3)                   Ms Bahcheli confirmed for Councillor Hyde that the previous reasons for refusal related to the poor standard of the accommodation and the amenity space at the front of the property.

(4)                   Ms Bahcheli confirmed for Councillor C. Theobald that the tree on the neighbour plot was on the boundary and was not the subject of a tree preservation order.

Questions for Officers and Decision Making Process

(5)                   In response to Councillors Carden and Duncan the Head of Development Control explained that conditions in relation to the hours of construction would not normally be attached to an application of this size as this type of activity was covered by separate legislation through environmental health.

(6)                   Councillor Duncan also asked if conditions could be added in relation to the tree, and it was confirmed that this had not been considered necessary as no potential harmful impact on trees had been indentified.

(7)                   Councillor Duncan stated he would like to support the application, but wanted to feel comfortable that it would not cause harm to the neighbours; in response the Head of Development Control confirmed whilst some other authorities had specific SPDs in relation to this it was felt locally that there were enough controls through other legislation.

(8)                   Councillor C. Theobald noted that trees had been protected in the past on some smaller schemes, and in response the Senior Planning Officer highlighted that it was not considered necessary to protect as no harm had been identified by the arbourist.

(9)                   A vote was taken and the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission was unanimously granted.

154.5    RESOLVED - That the Committee has taken into consideration the recommendation and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in section 11 and resolved to be MINDED TO GRANT planning permission following expiry of the neighbour notification period  and subject to conditions.