Agenda item - BH2013/03955 - 32 - 34 Arundel Road, Brighton - Full Planning

Demolition of existing shop and flat above and erection of three storey building with basement creating 4no two bedroom maisonettes.

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE

Demolition of existing shop and flat above and erection of three storey building with basement creating 4no two bedroom maisonettes.

(1)             The Planning Manager (Applications), Nicola Hurley, introduced the application by reference to photographs, plans and elevational drawings. The application site was located on the eastern side of the road and formed part of a terrace; planning permission had been refused in May 2013 for the demolition of the site and the construction of four two-bedroom maisonettes. The reasons for refusal had related to the objection from the Health & Safety Executive; the incongruous appearance, the standard of accommodation and lack of cycle parking. In relation to the current application the consultation responses were set out in the report, and the comments of the Health & Safety Executive were of importance. The wider considerations related to: the principle of demolition; the construction of four units; the hazardous site to the east; appearance; the standard of accommodation; amenity; transport and sustainability.

(2)             The site was located within the Black Rock gas site area, and was subject to consultation with the Health and  Safety Executive.. Due to the creation of four units the Health and Safety Executive had advised against the development on the basis of density. Since the previous refusal there had been a prior approval for the demolition of the gasholders on the site; however, other gas apparatus, including  mains, was still in use and the site remained a major hazard installation. In the previous scheme the design was considered incongruous and excessive – the main differences were now minor and included changes to the front by narrowing the windows at street level, but this did not overcome the previous reason for refusal. Cycle parking was now proposed. There were still concerns with the size and standard of the accommodation, and for the reasons set out in the report the application was recommended for refusal.

Public Speaker(s) and Questions

(3)             Councillor Smith spoke in support of the application in his capacity a local Ward Councillor. He stated that other applications of lower density had been granted permission in the street, and he felt the approach of the Health and Safety Executive was inconsistent. The Council was currently under pressure to build on greenfield sites in the city, but it was important that brownfield sites, such as this, were utilised. The site had also been vacant for a number of years, and neighbours would welcome it coming back into use.

(4)             Mr Trevor Scoble was registered to speak in support of the application in his capacity as the agent; however, due to illness he was not able to attend the meeting, and a submission was read on his behalf. It stated that Mr Scoble has previously requested the application be deferred as the full information lodged in support of the application was not before the Committee for consideration. This information had only been part referenced in the Officer report under 8.9,’ but there were further pieces of information that had not been referred to in the Officers report. Mr Scoble had requested a deferral of the application; following confirmation from the Case Officer that the planning condition referred to by the Health and Safety Executive could not be given as it relied on action from a third party. For these reasons Mr Scoble felt he could not respond properly to the Officer report. He asked that the Case Officer provide the ‘missing’ information to the Committee for their consideration.

Questions for Officers

(5)             In response to Councillor Wells the dimensions of the living rooms in the scheme were confirmed.

(6)             The Planning Manager (Applications) confirmed the situation in relation to the Health and Safety Executive’s advice stating that where they objected the Local Planning Authority could not legally grant the application. Were the Committee minded to approve then the Health and Safety Executive would have to be informed. The health and Safety Executive would then consider whether to request the Secretary of State to call in the application decision.. In relation to the hazardous site there were still significant remedial works to be completed before development could be permitted.

(7)             In response to Councillor K. Norman it was clarified that the gas works site had not been decontaminated or fully decommissioned.

(8)             It was confirmed for Councillor Wells that the density of units on the site gave rise to the Health and Safety Executive’s  objection.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(9)             Councillor Jones stated he was surprised by the position of the Health and Safety Executive; however, due to the very small size of the proposed units he would support the Officer recommendation.

(10)          Councillor Hyde noted there was a mix of different styles and densities of dwellings in this area; she was not convinced about the strength of the design, and acknowledged comments that a lower density scheme might receive approval.

(11)          Councillor Randall felt the position of the Health and Safety Executive was inconsistent; he noted the rooms were very small in the proposal and felt the development would benefit more from being two properties.

(12)          Councillor Wells stated he would support the Officers recommendation due to the small size of the rooms.

(13)          A vote was taken by the 12 Members present and the Officer recommendation that permission be refused was carried on a vote of 10 in support with 2 against.

151.4    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 REFUSE permission for the reasons set out below:

              Reasons for Refusal

i.                 The Health and Safety Executive have advised against the proposed development due to the density and scale of the development proposed and the proximity of the site to a Major Hazardous Installation in the form of the Black Rock gas holder site. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy SU12 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan.

ii.               The proposed building by reason of its scale, height and design would have an incongruous and excessively prominent appearance when viewed in conjunction with the buildings to either side and the wider street scene. The proposal fails to demonstrate a high standard of design and architecture and fails to pay respect to the context of the site. The development is therefore contrary to policies QD1 and QD2 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan.

iii.              The proposed residential units would provide an unacceptably poor standard of accommodation due to their cramped layouts and small room sizes. The proposed kitchen areas are particularly small in relation to the two-bedroom units proposed. The proposed development is therefore contrary to policy QD27 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan which seeks to ensure an acceptable standard of amenity for future residents.

Informatives:

i.                 In accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy SS1 of the Brighton & Hove City Plan Part One (submission document) the approach to making a decision on this planning application has been to apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development. The Local Planning Authority seeks to approve planning applications which are for sustainable development where possible.