Agenda item - BH2014/02826 - 24 Hythe Road, Brighton - Full Planning

Erection of 3no four bedroom dwellings, conversion of stable block to four bedroom dwelling and enlargement of garden to existing dwelling.

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Erection of 3no four bedroom dwellings, conversion of stable block to four bedroom dwelling and enlargement of garden to existing dwelling.

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

(2)             The Area Planning Manager, Nicola Hurley, introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to photographs, plans and elevations drawings. The application site related to a former car repair garage and associated workshop; the site abutted the Preston Park Conservation Area, and also included a 2-storey historic stable block. Planning permission had been refused for a similar scheme earlier in the year, and the details of this were highlighted to the Committee. Planning permission was now sought for the demolition of all the structures on the site, and the retention of the 2-storey stable block. There had been changes during the life of the application to amend the roof windows at the rear of the properties and the changes were highlighted to the Committee.

(3)             The main considerations related to the change of use; the historic setting of the conservation area; the impact on amenity; the standard of the accommodation and transport matters. Whilst no marketing evidence had been produced to justify the change of use a structural survey had evidenced that the buildings were in an extremely poor condition and dangerous in places – they were considered to be beyond financial viability. The current light industrial use was also considered harmful given the wider residential area, and there were an adequate number of other B1 use units in the area. The current appearance of the buildings was considered harmful, and they formed a gap in the street scene that was uncharacteristic of the wider area.

(4)             The application also retained the original stable block, and this would have features to reflect those in the wider street scene, and would relate positively to the area. The stable block pre-dated the majority of the houses in the area, and the Heritage Office had indicated that the retention of it was favourable. The separation distances would also be similar to those in the wider area; it was acknowledged that residents had benefited from the units being unused from some time, but it was noted that the new use was all residential. The scheme was considered acceptable in terms of sustainability and transport, and for the reasons outlined in the report it was recommended for refusal.

Public Speaker(s) and Questions

(5)             Sarah Bussey spoke in objection to the application in her capacity as a local resident. She stated that she was speaking on behalf of the 20 residents that had objected to the scheme, and noted that she had a petition of 77 signatures with her. The scheme would be overdevelopment of the site, and lead to a loss of amenity creating a significant impact on residents. The addition of the new four bedroom properties would create more noise, and existing buildings would be overlooked. There were already significant parking pressures in the area, and use of cars was greater in more “affluent” areas such as Fiveways. The credibility of the letters of support was also questioned, and it was noted that 5 of the 20 objectors were those with properties immediately adjacent to the stable block. It was felt that some of the previous reasons for refusal still applied, and the increased noise and pressure on parking were reiterated.

(6)             In response to Councillor Robins it was explained by the objector that there would be increased noise as the site was currently vacant.

(7)             Councillor Kennedy spoke in objection to the scheme in her capacity as one of the Local Ward Councillors. She stated that the petition highlighted by the resident speaking was evidence to the strength of feeling in the area. Residents were not fundamentally opposed to the development of the front of the site, but the proposals for the stable block were not acceptable, and it would have been preferable if the application had been considered in two parts separately. Residents were concerned about the use of the stable block, and the impact of this aspect of the scheme should be enough to warrant refusal. The impact on parking and traffic were highlighted, and the validity of the letters of support was again queried.

(8)             Councillor Kennedy responded to Councillor Cox that an alternate use for the stable block was a matter for the applicant to put forward.

(9)             Mr Starley spoke in support of the application in his capacity as the applicant, and explained that he was also a resident and his father had been born on the street. He had worked very closely with his architect on the design, and the scheme had developed in response to consultation with local residents. The stable block was a heritage asset, and its conversion would assist in maintaining it, and the wider scheme would return much of the plot to garden. Mr Starley stated that he was aware of the parking issues in the area, but noted that the stable block had its own disabled parking bay – there would also be additional parking created through the removal of the drop kerbs for the repair garage. He hoped the Committee could approve the plans before them to improve the area.

(10)          In response to Councillor Davey it was explained by Mr Starley that residents’ concerns should be alleviated as the principle garden for the stable block would be located to the side – rather than at the rear.

Questions for Officers

(11)          In response to Councillor Davey it was confirmed that the stable block was being converted, and would not be enlarged.

(12)          In response to Councillor Wells it was confirmed that the repair garage could revert to its permitted use, but the buildings were in a very poor state of repair.

(13)          It was confirmed for Councillor Gilbey that the height of the stable block would not be changing.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(14)          Councillor Wells stated that he welcomed the improvements, and he did not see any issues with the changes to the stable block. He stated he would support the Officer recommendation.

(15)          Councillor Hyde stated that the scheme had improved during the life of the application, and she felt that the design was appropriate. She stated the current structure was an “eyesore”, and the proposals would be an improvement for the street. The loss of the B1 use was acceptable, and the stable block was already on the site and the works had been designed to minimise overlooking. In terms of amenity Councillor Hyde stated that this would not be significantly different from that currently as the properties were residential – she added that parking would also be gained through the removal of the drop kerbs. For these reasons she would support the Officer recommendation in the report.

(16)          Councillor Gilbey stated that she agreed with Councillor Hyde in relation to overlooking, and added that the addition of the garden space would improve the area.

(17)          Councillor C. Theobald stated that the buildings were currently derelict and ugly, and this scheme would be a welcome improvement; she would support the Officer recommendation.

(18)          The Chair stated that he had been struck by the tight urban grain on the site visit, and the site was an exception in the area. He felt that the scheme reflected policy and he would support the Officers recommendation.

(19)          A vote was then taken and the Officer recommendation that permission be approved was carried unanimously by the 11 Members present at the meeting.

103.6      RESOLVED –That the Committee has taken into consideration the recommendation and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in section 11 and resolves to GRANT planning permission subject to conditions and informatives. 

Note: Councillor Jones was not present at the meeting.