Agenda item - BH2014/03396 - Land Rear of 5-11 Cromwell Street, Brighton - Full Planning

Demolition of existing garages and erection of 2no dwellings accessed from Cromwell Road.

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE

Demolition of existing garages and erection of 2no dwellings accessed from Cromwell Road.

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

(2)             The Area Planning Manager gave a presentation by reference to photographs plans and elevational drawings. The application site related to a triangular plot of land with a 5 metre retaining wall, and access to the site was by a driveway off Cromwell Street. The history of the site showed that an application for two dwellings had been refused earlier in the year for reasons of over dominance, intrusiveness and overdevelopment, and the application was a revised scheme. The main considerations related to: the principle of the development; design and scale; the impact on amenity and future amenity, transport and sustainability. In terms of the differences with this scheme the windows were away from the external walls of the property and had been moved to the inner walls. It was noted that the loss of the garages would not impact on parking in the area, and the use of the site for residential properties was in line with the NPPF. The buildings were suitable designed, and would not cause detriment as they were mostly not visible from public view; the entrance was also partially obscured and the existing garages were of little architectural value.

(3)             The existing dwellings were in streets with two storeys and pitched roofs; the proposal would have flat roofs and the size and scale would be subservient. Whilst the design would contrast the simple design was considered appropriate. The proposed dwellings would have flat roofs and be 1.3 metres higher than the existing wall – this was considered to be overbearing development. Concerns had been raised by neighbours in relation to the height and bulk and the proposals were considered to be unneighbourly. Whilst the windows had been amended this was not considered sufficient, and the scheme was thought to be cramped and overbearing creating a loss of privacy. Whilst there was no objection to the principle of development on the site the application was recommended for refusal.

Public Speaker(s) and Questions

(4)             Councillor Randall spoke in support of the scheme in his capacity as a Local Ward Councillor. He stated that this was a small scheme that tidied up a scruffy area, and the proposals were neither cramped nor overbearing. The loss of amenity was minimal and this needed to be considered in the context of the housing shortage in the city and the necessity to look careful at these types of small sites. The applicant had consulted carefully with neighbours in relation to the application, and there was only one objection. The proposals were energy efficient, and the existing garages caused problems for the area. The design was considered appropriate with minimal impact, and the Committee were urged to support the application.

(5)             Mr Charles Meloy spoke in support of the application in his capacity as the applicant. He stated that the application was on a derelict brownfield site and the proposals were overwhelmingly supported by the neighbours. The scheme had been carefully designed to give positive enhancements, and would be subservient to the surrounding buildings, and the density was half that of the average for the Ward. In relation to amenity the windows were inset, and the proposals would meet code level 4 for sustainability whilst improving the ecology of the site. There would be no loss of light to the adjoining neighbours, and he had worked to keep residents informed about the scheme – which was reflected in the 20 letters of support. The scale was appropriate and the gains would outweigh the impact; the Committee were invited to approve the application.

Questions for Officers

(6)             The front to front distance of the houses in Cromwell Street was confirmed for Councillor Davey.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(7)             Councillors Wells stated that he would vote against the Officer recommendation; he noted the garages had not been in use for some time, and the proposals would tidy up an otherwise scruffy area. He noted the good use of the site and the number of letters of support.

(8)             Councillor Davey noted the space seemed redundant, and the approach taken seemed measured; for these reasons he would not support the Officer recommendation.

(9)             Councillor Littman stated that applicant’s plans were good; the loss of amenity had been minimised.

(10)          The Chair noted his agreement with the points made in the debate; he noted the amenity issues in relation to no. 5, but felt these were overcome by the good design and efficient use of the site.

(11)          A vote was taken by the 12 Members present at the Committee and that Officer recommendation that planning permission be refused was not carried on a vote of 10 against and 2 abstentions. Reasons were then proposed to approve the application and these were agreed by the Committee. A recorded vote was then taken on the reasons for approval and Councillors: Mac Cafferty, Jones, Cox, Davey, Gilbey, Hamilton, Littman, Phillips, C. Theobald and Wells voted that permission be granted and Councillors: Hyde and Carden abstained from the vote.

115.6    RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into considered the Officers recommendation, but resolves to be MINDED TO GRANT permission for the reasons set out below and subject to the attachment of appropriate conditions to be determined by the Head of development Control

i)       The proposed development was of a good design, represented an efficient use of space, provided valuable housing and would be an amenity benefit to residents.