Agenda item - BH2014/03968 - Blocks A B & C Belvedere, 152-158 Dyke Road, Brighton - Full Planning

Erection of additional storey to blocks A, B and C to create 5no two bedroom and 1no one bedroom flats (C3) (2no additional flats per block). Erection of bicycle store.

RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

Erection of additional storey to blocks A, B and C to create 5no two bedroom and 1no one bedroom flats (C3) (2no additional flats per block). Erection of bicycle store.

1)               The Principal Planning Officer, Guy Everest, introduced the report and gave a presentation by reference to photographs, plans and elevational drawings. There was an additional condition in relation to the development being car free. The application site related to a residential site with five blocks of flats; consent was sought for additional flats with each unit containing a roof terrace at the front, and the internal layout would reach lifetime homes standards. The design and scale was considered acceptable, and the impact on amenity was outlined in the report. In relation to transport there would be new cycle storage in an accessible location at Block C with room for 9 cycles. The location was considered accessible in terms of transport; there was very limited parking on Dyke Road and it had been clarified that individual addresses could be made car free which would reduce the demand. Contributions were sought towards infrastructure improvements on Dyke Road, and the submitted construction plan would achieve code level 4 for sustainability – the conditions had been amended to reflect this. The application was recommended for approval, subject to a s106 agreement, for the reasons outlined in the report.

Public Speaker(s) and Questions

2)               Mr James Endersby and Mr Richard Peakin spoke in opposition to the scheme in their capacity as local residents. They stated that the application would create ‘gross over-looking’ from the new balconies; the scheme would create a serious loss of amenity in terms of light to the stairwells to the extent they would require permanent artificial light. In relation to parking whilst the development would be car free those living there would still have visitors. The resident’s disagreed with the Legal Advisor’s position in relation to human rights considerations, and the residents had suggested a bond to protect residents should the developer become insolvent. Residents had strong concerns in relation to the additional storey proposed in the application, and they were of the view that the scheme did not comply with policy QD27. There was concern that the construction would cause undue stress for residents, and it was noted that the additional flats would have no lift access for the disabled. Residents expressed concern in relation to property values, and highlighted the lack of communication from the developer.

3)               In response to Councillor Davey the objectors explained that the overlooking would be caused by the setback parapet allowing direct views onto the balconies below.

4)               In response to Councillor Cox the objectors clarified that the glazed element providing light to the stairwell would be lost in the development.

5)               Councillor Kennedy spoke in her capacity as the local ward Councillor. She stated that she both wished to object to the scheme and supported what had already been said by the residents. She was of the view that the scheme represented over-development in terms of the height and scale, and the scheme was contrary to policy. There were also concerns in relation to the loss of amenity and additional noise – both contrary to policy QD27. Councillor Kennedy acknowledged the difficult position for the city in terms of housing, but she felt the potential harm to the existing residents would be too great.

6)               Mr Simon Bareham spoke in support of the application in his capacity as the agent acting on behalf of the applicant. He stated that the application would make a positive addition to the supply of housing, and there was a full assessment on the visual impact of the scheme – the additional flats were considered to be well designed and comfortable. The large separation distances would help to protect privacy and outlook, and the residents’ concerns in relation to overlooking from the balconies were refuted. In relation to noise and sound insulation it was noted that the new units would comply with modern building regulations – as opposed to the lower standard of the existing buildings. The Officer report recommended a construction environmental management plan, and the plans were for high quality units of lifetime homes standards, all with their own private amenity space. In summary the Committee was invited to grant permission for the high quality scheme with no harmful impact.

7)               In response to Councillor C. Theobald the agent explained that the new floor would be accessed by extended the existing staircases.

8)               In response to Councillor Jones the agent explained that due to the positioning of the staircase in Block C the additional floor would sit slightly forward of the building line.

Questions for Officers

9)               The Presenting Officer confirmed for Councillor Hyde that a person would need to stand very close to the edge of the new balcony to overlook the balcony below. This was clarified by reference to the plans.  The setback distance of three metres, excluding the bay window, for the new storey was also confirmed.

10)            In response to a further question from Councillor Hyde it was clarified that the loss of light to the communal area did not warrant a reason for refusal on the basis of harm as it was not a habitable room or living space; the use of artificial light was also considered a common feature of communal areas. In response to a further question from Councillor Jones it was reiterated that in terms of policy QD27 Officers were of the view that this did not form a strong enough reason for refusal.

11)            It was confirmed for Councillor Cox that there were currently 30 flats in the three blocks.

Debates and Decision Making Process

12)            Councillor C. Theobald stated that she was not happy with the proposals in terms of noise and disturbance, and the scheme would not be fair on the existing residents. There would be: overlooking; a lack of parking, and the distance to the new floor without disabled access was unacceptable. On principle she did not agree with this type of development, and for the reasons stated she would not support the Officer recommendation.

13)            Councillor Phillips stated that she had listened to the concerns of residents, and felt that the proposals were appropriate in terms of scale and bulk. She knew these blocks well, and added that all developments would always cause a degree of noise and disturbance; for these reasons she would support the Officer recommendation.

14)            Councillor Davey stated that the decision was a difficult one, but he felt that he could not support the Officer recommendation as the impact on the existing residents would be too great.

15)            Councillor Hyde stated that the scheme would seriously affect daylight and sunlight, and the scheme did not meet policy QD27; however, she was mindful that refusal to this type of scheme was often lost at appeal.

16)            Councillor Littman noted that he similarly found this a difficult decision; he felt the look was appropriate, and his main concerns related to the impact on those currently living in the blocks. On balance he felt that he could not support the Officer recommendation.

17)            Councillor Jones noted he had been in a similar situation to the residents in a property in which he had lived, but there had been few issues once the works were completed. He stated that at this point he remained undecided, but had concerns this could be over-development.

18)            The Chair stated that the Committee needed to balance the impact on the residents against the need to provide new homes within the city; he was of the view that the necessity for new homes should be afforded greater weight.

19)            Before the vote was taken the Planning & Building Control Applications Manager clarified that the Committee could not give any weight to the objector’s comments in relation to property values. Also the construction impacts could not form a material consideration unless there was an accompanying EIA.

20)            A vote was taken by the 12 Members present and the Officer recommendation that the Committee be minded to grant planning was carried on a vote of 7 in support; 4 against and 1 abstention.

139.6    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 be MINDED TO GRANT planning permission subject to a s106 agreement and the conditions and informatives set out in section 11; the additional and amended conditions and additional informative set out below, and an additional condition in relation to the approval of the roof arrangements to enable the stairways to receive natural light (the full wording of the condition to be agreed by the Planning & Building Control Applications Manager).

              Additional Condition 10

The internal layout of the new dwellings hereby permitted shall be constructed to Lifetime Homes Standards prior to their first occupation and shall be retained as such thereafter.

Reason:  To ensure satisfactory provision of homes for people with disabilities and to meet the changing needs of households and to comply with policy HO13 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

Additional Condition 11

The development hereby permitted shall not begin until such time as a scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority to provide that the residents of the proposed development, other than those residents with disabilities who are Blue Badge Holders, have no entitlement to a resident's parking permit.

Reason: To ensure that the development is car-free and to comply with policy HO7 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

Additional Informative

The applicant is advised that the scheme required to be submitted by Condition 11 should include the registered address of the completed development; an invitation to the Council as Highway Authority (copied to the Council’s Parking Team) to amend the Traffic Regulation Order; and details of arrangements to notify potential purchasers, purchasers and occupiers that the development is car-free.   

Amended Conditions 6 & 8

to be amended to require Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4.

Amended Conditions 10

The internal layout of the new dwellings hereby permitted shall be constructed to Lifetime Homes Standards prior to their first occupation and shall be retained as such thereafter.

Reason:  To ensure satisfactory provision of homes for people with disabilities and to meet the changing needs of households and to comply with policy HO13 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.