Agenda item - BH2014/01523 - 7 Symbister Road, Portslade - Full Planning

Demolition of existing building and erection of a part  three/part four  storey building to form 9no flats incorporating communal garden to rear and 4no off street parking spaces to the front.

Ward: South Portslade

RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

- Demolition of existing building and erection of a part three/part

four storey building to form 9no flats incorporating communal

garden to rear and 4no off street parking spaces to the front.

(1)       The Area Planning Manager (Nicola Hurley) gave a presentation detailing the constituent elements of the scheme by reference to photographs of the existing site, plans and elevational drawings.

(2)       The main considerations in determining the application related to the loss of the industrial unit, the design and appearance of the proposed development, impact on residential amenity, standard of accommodation, transport and highway concerns, land contamination and sustainability. It was considered that the proposed development made efficient and effective use of land within the built up area and would enhance the character and appearance of the site and wider area. The development would not have significant impact on amenity through loss of light or privacy, or increased overshadowing or noise disturbance, nor would it create a harmful demand for travel. It was considered that loss of the existing commercial premises had been justified and minded to grant approval was therefore recommended.

            Public Speakers

(3)       Mr Julian Panico spoke on behalf of neighbouring objectors setting out their objections to the proposed scheme. He stated that in his view the immediate area had reached saturation point in terms of new development, citing Besson House/Turner House, plus Gordon Mews Offices (30 homes), Gordon Road/Norway Street/ Rothbury Mews (around 30 homes), Panorma House, Vale Road (approximately 40 homes), Vale Park (approximately 40 homes), Portslade Mews, former Infinity Food/ BPP site (approximately 40 homes), now a further 9 properties were proposed which represented over development when seen in the context of the development which had already been built or for which permission existed. The proposed new dwelling houses were completely out of keeping with the appearance of the existing neighbouring development and would result in unacceptable levels of overlooking. There were also grave concerns about additional traffic and parking which would be generated by the development. Gordon Road and its immediate environs were already a traffic pinch point.

(4)       Mr Richard Mason spoke on behalf of the applicants in support for their scheme. He stated that a great deal of thought had been given to the siting of the dwellings within the site to ensure that existing building lines were maintained and there was an acceptable distance between the new buildings and the existing properties to the rear. The upper floors of the development had been scaled in order to avoid overlooking and all but one of the balconies had been removed in order to address this issue.

            Questions of Officers

(5)       Councillor Hamilton sought clarification regarding configuration of the balconies within the proposed development and it was confirmed that two balconies had been deleted from the plans for the frontage of the development. There would be one balcony to the rear. The scheme had originally included balconies to the second and third floor flats but the plans had been amended and these had been replaced with windows to match the rest of the rear elevation.

(6)       Councillor Pissaridou sought confirmation regarding how the development would line up with the frontage of the existing terraced houses.

(7)       Councillor Wealls asked regarding proposed parking arrangements and whether the area fell within a Controlled Parking Zone. The Transport Planning Manager (Steven Shaw) confirmed that the number of parking spaces proposed for development was considered appropriate as it was in line with Supplementary Planning Guidance Note 4 on Parking Standards. The applicant was proposing 4 on-site parking spaces to the front of the property. Councillor Wealls also sought clarification of the distance between the new development and the nearest car club. It was confirmed that two car club bays were located to the north of Portslade Station and that others located in Worcester Villas were a short walking distance from the application site. Councillor Wealls enquired whether any research had been undertaken indicating the level of take up of car club membership. It was explained that no data was available and that, generally, the success of car clubs depended on the other controls in place within an area.

(8)       Councillor Wealls requested details of the distances between the rear of the properties and those located in Franklin Road. He stated that he found it difficult to determine the degree of any potential overlooking from the photographs and other perspectives shown.

            Debate and Decision Making Process

(9)       Councillor Hamilton stated that he was unable to support the proposed form of development on a number of grounds. He considered that the number of units proposed would result in increased vehicles and vehicle movements and would generate the need for considerably more parking than would be provided on site, in an area where all of these things were already problematic. The proposed flats constituted over development of the site and would give rise to potential overlooking. His preference would have been for the addition of 3 modest terraced houses which would complete and blend in with the existing terrace.

(10)     Councillor Pissaridou concurred in that view stating that she lived in the area and was aware that there was a shortage of on-street parking. The proposed development would exacerbate existing problems. She also considered that the proposed development was inappropriate in its design and would overwhelm the existing properties in Franklin Road.

(11)     Councillor Cox considered that the site was suitable for small scale terraced housing which would be sympathetic to the existing houses. This scheme sought to cram a lot onto a tight site where there was an opportunity to provide a better scheme than that proposed.

(12)     Councillor C Theobald agreed that it would have been more appropriate to complete the existing terrace. The level of parking was inadequate as she considered that a car parking space per unit should have been provided as a minimum. The car club spaces were not located a short walking distance from the site and she did not consider that the manner in which the proposed parking spaces had been configured at the front of the development was suitable.

(13)     The Chair, Councillor Mac Cafferty stated that there was a dire need for more housing across the city, in his view the proposed development represented an intelligent response to that.

(14)     A vote was taken and Members voted that permission be granted on a vote of 7 to 5.

79.3    RESOLVED – That the Committee has been taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in section 11 of the report and the policies and guidance in section 7 and resolves that it is MINDED TO GRANT planning permission subject to a S106 agreement and the Conditions and Informatives set out in section 11.