Agenda item - BH2014/01956 - Land to Rear of 28 Eastern Place, Brighton - Full Planning

Erection of 1no. four bedroom dwelling.

Ward: Rottingdean Coastal

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

- Erection of 1no four bedroom dwelling.

(1)          The Area Planning Manager (Nicola Hurley) gave a presentation detailing the constituent elements of the scheme by reference to site plans, site photographs, floor plans and elevational drawings which showed the differences in ground levels across the site. The principle of the development had been accepted in the two previously refused applications as set out in the report. The lawful use of the site was as a scaffolders yard, which had been in situ for 30 years. The site had been used for storage and distribution but also for repair and maintenance of the scaffolding and as such the site would be classed as a sui generis use, which meant that there was no presumption against loss of employment floorspace. Therefore a residential use would add to the existing housing stick within the city and was considered acceptable.

(2)       The applicant had attempted to address the reasons for refusal by proposing a single residential dwelling on the site and by relocating the development further away from the boundaries of the site and the rear of 28 Eastern Place and by altering the design, detailing and materials.

(3)       The development would make efficient an effective use of the site and would have no significant adverse impact on the character and visual amenity of the site or the wider surrounding area, approval was therefore recommended.

            Public Speakers

(4)       Mrs Amanda Godfrey spoke on behalf of neighbouring objectors. Mrs Godfrey displayed visuals of the proposed development (prepared by the objectors).She considered with its box like cedar cladding would be completely out of keeping with the character and appearance of the neighbouring dwellings and those in the surrounding area. The development would be situated directly adjacent to their homes and was of a height and dimensions such that it would result in overlooking and would have an overbearing impact on their properties. The boundary wall was in Mrs Godfrey’s ownership and the applicants would have to erect their own. In view of its previous use it was believed that the site could constitute contaminated land, this did not appear to have been addressed.

(5)       Mrs Lucy Lauener, the applicant spoke in support of her application accompanied by Mr Charles Meloy the architect for the scheme. Mrs Lauener stated that the visuals displayed by the objector contained inaccuracies and in that the proposed form of development had been designed in order provide sustainable family dwelling which would not result in overlooking or be unneighbourly. The development should be considered in the context of the existing site which was an eyesore bearing in mind its previous use. Earlier plans had been amended and only one dwelling house was proposed for the site.

(6)       Councillor Littman sought clarification regarding the appearance of the cladding material proposed. Mr Meloy explained that a proprietary dark timber stain would be applied using a two stage process, this would maintain the materials appearance and protect it from any adverse effects of weathering.

(7)       Councillor Hyde asked why a modern design had been chosen which appeared to have an appearance at variance with that of its neighbours. Mr Meloy explained that the site straddled an area which had two differing architectural styles and in consequence it had been decided to create a simple contemporary building which would sit within its own site.

            Questions of Officers

(8)       Councillor Phillips asked to see photographs showing the adjacent dwellings. Councillor Pissaridou also asked to see images of the site in relation to dwellings in the surrounding area. It was confirmed that drawings of the proposed dwelling house were indicative.

(9)       Councillor Littman referred to the reference that had been made in the report which referred to the land as potentially being contaminated and sought clarification as to how this would be addressed. It was confirmed that Condition 5 of the proposed conditions would address this matter and had been added at the request of Environmental Health who had raised no objections.

(10)     Councillor Hyde sought clarification as to the distance between the application site and the neighbouring dwellings.

            Debate and Decision Making Process

(11)     Councillor Hyde stated that she had two major concerns in relation to the proposed form of development, the distance between it and the neighbouring dwellings and the in terms of its appearance which she considered to be whimsical and of a design which was completely inappropriate to its location and would be detrimental to neighbouring amenity.

(12)     Councillor Davey stated that he considered that the site was a big plot, the current application was modest compared to previous applications and represented a good modern design.

(13)     The Chair, Councillor Mac Cafferty stated that whilst design considerations were subjective he considered the proposed form of development represented an innovative design in its own right.

(14)     A vote was taken and planning permission was granted on a vote of 7 to 3 with 2 abstentions.

79.7    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 and resolves to GRANT planning permission subject to the Conditions and Informatives set out in section 11.