Agenda item - BH2014/00645 - 15 Upper Rock Gardens, Brighton - Full Planning

Erection of 1no two storey one bed house to side/rear of 15 Upper Rock Gardens (FP).

Ward: Queens Park

RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

-Erection of 1 no two storey one bed house to side/rear of 15 Upper Rock Gardens.

(1)       It was noted that this application had been the subject of a site visit prior to the meeting.

(2)       The Area Planning Manager (Nicola Hurley) gave a presentation showing site plans and drawings showing the existing and proposed elevations and the differences between the previously refused application. It was noted that listed Building consent had already been given to erect a 1no two storey one bedroomed house to the side and rear of 15 Upper Rock Gardens. This was a tandem application in conjunction with the listed building application which was still under consideration.

(3)       It was explained that the main difference between this and the previously refused scheme, which had been dismissed on appeal, was the alteration to the roof, which by reducing the massing to the rear now had less effect on the adjacent buildings. The proposed roof now sloped away from the property to the rear and it was considered that this amendment would overcome the inspector’s concerns that the siting of the development would impair the outlook and enjoyment of the amenity space of the adjoining dwelling.

(4)       Loss of part of the garden had also been cited previously as a reason for dismissing the appeal as it was considered that the host building would be left with insufficient amenity space. In order to address this concern. Amended plans were currently expected indicating a shared space for occupiers of the proposed house the HMO. It was therefore considered that loss of part of the garden was outweighed by the benefit of providing a new residential unit, particularly as some of the garden was to be retained. Many units in the vicinity did not have private amenity space. For these reasons it was considered that the scheme now overcame the previous reasons for refusal and minded to grant approval was recommended.

            Debate and Decision Making Process

(5)       Councillor Mac Cafferty, the Chair stated that he fully understood the weight which needed to be attached to the Inspector’s previous appeal decision. Therefore, although he felt deeply uncomfortable about the siting,  limited floor space of the new dwelling and level of amenity proposed he felt that he had no option but to support the proposed scheme.

(6)       Councillor C Theolbald referred to the potential impact of the the proposal on the portico to the Listed Building. However, the Development Control Manager stated that this had been assessed as part of the Planning Inspector’s earlier deliberations and had been deemed a later addition which could be removed. Councillor Theobald stated that she was of the view that the proposals were an overdevelopment of the site and as such she could not support them.

(7)       Councillor Hyde stated that she was concerned that the resulting shared amenity space would be inadequate, she was also concerned about the impact of the new building on the portico entrance of the existing building. The proposed building had a very limited floorspace and overall in her view the applicants were seeking to cram too much onto the site and it represented over development.

(8)       A vote was taken and on a vote of 8 to 3 planning permission was granted for the reasons set out below.

79.5    RESOLVED – That the Committee has 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 of the report and resolves to be MINDED TO GRANT planning permission subject to the receipt of satisfactory amended plans and the Conditions and Informatives also set out in section 11.

            Note: Councillor Davey was not present at the meeting when the vote was taken.