Agenda item - BH2013/03987 - Gladstone Court, Hartington Road, Brighton - Full Planning

Erection of three storey side extension to form 6no one bedroom flats and 3no two bedroom flats

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE

Erection of three storey side extension to form 6no one bedroom flats and 3no two bedroom flats.

(1)                   The Senior Planning Officer, Guy Everest, introduced the report and gave a presentation by reference to photographs, plans and elevational drawings. The application site related to a block of pursue built flats with a three-storey frontage that increased to four-storeys at the rear due to the change in land levels. The application sought consent for a three-storey side extension for six 1 bedroom flats and three 2 bedroom flats. It was considered that the proposed scale and design would have harmful impact on the neighbouring and surrounding area. Whilst there was no objection to the unit size it was considered that the angled windows created inadequate lighting and outlook for residents. It was also considered that the gardens of the neighbouring properties would suffer a loss of privacy and the proximity of the extension would be overbearing. For the reasons outlined in the report the application was recommended for refusal.

Public Speaker(s) and Questions

(2)                   Mr Paul Burgess spoke in support of the application in his capacity as the agent; he stated that the city was being forced to look at urban fringe sites to meet the housing allocation, and as such there was a need to look more closely of existing sites within the city. The extension would be set back and only marginally visible from the street, and built with matching materials. The three storey extension was modest when compared with the development of the wider site at Enterprise Point, and had been designed to avoid overlooking. It was also noted that there were evergreen trees on the neighbour plots which would further help to protect amenity. He also highlighted that the applicant would be happy to discuss financial contributions if the Committee were minded to grant the application. There were already potential rooms in the building that could be used for cycle storage for all the properties in the building.

(3)                   Mr Burgess explained in response to Councillor Davey that the extension would be built against the external wall which currently had windows for the corridors; in the plans these would be internalised.

Questions for Officers

(4)                   In response to Councillor C. Theobald it was explained that the new extension would be approximately 3.2 metres from the rear of the properties on Shanklin Road.

(5)                   It was confirmed for Councillor Gilbey that the proposed materials would match those of the existing building.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(6)                   Councillor Duncan noted that he agreed with the applicant’s comments in relation to looking at higher density on existing sites in the city; however, he felt the reasons for refusal in relation to the impact on amenity and the poor standard of accommodation were compelling. For these reasons he would be voting in support of the Officer recommendation.

(7)                   Councillor C. Theobald stated that she agreed with these comments, and that she did not feel the development would not be fair on the existing residents; she also cited the close proximity to Shanklin Road and the loss of light and amenity.

(8)                   Councillor Jones noted that the Mr Burgess had made a good argument; however, he agreed with the recommendation of the Officers and felt the scheme would overdevelop the site.

(9)                   Councillor Davey noted he was sympathetic to the argument in relation to the necessity for increased density; however, he felt that the application was too much at this location.

(10)               Councillor Wells stated he would support the Officer recommendation as he felt the proposal was too much for the site and too high.

(11)               Councillor Hyde noted that she agreed with all the comments made in the debate, but noted that she felt the retention of the car park was a positive feature.

(12)               A vote was taken and the Officer recommendation to refuse planning permission was unanimously carried.

154.7    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 REFUSE planning permission for the reasons set out below:

Reasons for Refusal:

              i.           The proposed extension by reason of its bulk, scale, massing and design and detailing, would result in unsympathetic and overly dominant addition that would relate poorly to and detract from the appearance and character of the existing property, and the surround area. The proposals are thereby contrary to policies QD2, and QD14 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

            ii.           The proposed extension would result in an unacceptable impact upon the amenity of the occupiers in terms of increased building bulk, and increased sense of enclosure, and perceived and actual overlooking as such the proposal is contrary to policies QD14 and QD27 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

          iii.           The proposed development would provide an unsatisfactory residential environment for the future occupiers of the proposed dwellings by virtue of poor level of outlook, contrary to policy QD27 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

           iv.           The proposal fails to meet the travel demands that it creates or help to maximise the use of sustainable transport. The Local Planning Authority would expect the scheme to make an appropriate contribution towards local sustainable transport infrastructure. In the absence of an agreement in this respect, the scheme is contrary to policies TR1, TR7, TR19, and QD28 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan and Supplementary Planning Guidance 04 Parking Standards.

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.