Agenda item - B BH2014/04116, 31 Melbourne Street, Brighton - Full Planning

Erection of three storey block containing 3no self contained flats.

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Ward Affected: Hanover & Elm Grove

Erection of three storey block containing 3no self contained flats.

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

(2)          The Planning Manager (Applications), Nicola Hurley, introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to site plans, floor plans, elevational drawings, showing the previous and currently proposed scheme and photographs showing views across the site from neighbouring locations.

(3)          It was noted that the site was situated to the west of the eastern length of Melbourne Street, and formed an open piece of land between the north elevation of 32 Melbourne Street which formed part of the historic terrace of properties and to the south of a recently constructed 3 storey modern apartment block (planning application BH2009/00655). The site had once formed part of the larger former Covers Yard site which last operated as a builders merchants and upon its closure was subdivided into a number of smaller sites. The main considerations relating to the determination of this application were the principle of development, the impact of the proposed development with respect to scale and design, neighbouring and future occupants’ residential amenity, traffic implications, sustainability and biodiversity.

(4)          It was explained that in the current application, the proposed number of flats had been reduced to three, the design of the roof had been altered, there had been cladding and fenestration changes to the external elevations, and the upper floor and Juliet balconies had been removed.

(5)          It was considered that as amended the proposed residential development would be of an appropriate appearance, no significant harm to future occupiers or neighbouring amenity would be caused, and subject to compliance with conditions matters relating to transport and sustainability would be successfully addressed, minded to grant approval was therefore recommended.

            Questions of Officers

(6)          Councillor Cox sought clarification regarding whether Councillors Daniels’ letter which was appended to the report actually constituted an objection. It was explained that the letter had been considered as such.

(7)          Councillor Randall referred to the 136 Community Centre which was located adjacent to the application site referring the narrow alleyway between the two buildings enquiring whether that would provide a means of escape in the event of the community centre needing to be evacuated, also the access arrangements for accident/rescue service vehicles. Councillor Randall stated that whilst he had no objections to the proposed scheme he was aware that the community centre often hosted family friendly events which were attended by a number of children.

(8)          The Planning Manager (Applications), explained that as far as she was aware there were no rights of way/access between the two buildings, although that would be a landownership issue which fell outside the powers of the planning regime. The Planning and Building Control Applications Manager confirmed that this was the case. The Legal Adviser to the Committee, Hilary Woodward confirmed that there might be a private, rather public right of way and the Principal Transport Officer, Stephen Shaw confirmed that based on his experience that was likely to be the case. The Planning Manager (Applications), Nicola Hurley, confirmed that if a right of way existed, although this fell outside the remit of the Planning Committee, there were means by which this could be enforced. Access arrangements for emergency service vehicles would be the same as that for a number of terraced properties across the city. The Chair asked if Members required a brief recess in order to check on this matter but Members indicated that this was unnecessary.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(9)       Councillor Wells stated that as the site had been in use previously as a storage yard associated with a builders merchants he considered that it was unlikely that there would have been rights of way between it and any of the neighbouring buildings. He welcomed the scheme which he considered represented a good use of the site, and once completed an improvement on the previous use. 

(10)     Councillor Hyde stated that although she had had reservations about the appropriateness of the scheme in the context of the neighbouring street scene, having had the opportunity to visit the site these had been dispelled completely. She considered that the proposed form of development fitted in well and was happy to support the officer recommendation.

(11)     Councillor Gilbey concurred stating that the proposed scheme would be an improvement to the existing derelict site.

(12)       A vote was taken and the 12 Members present when the vote was taken voted unanimously that minded to grant approval be given.

165.2    RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in section 7 of the report and resolves to be MINDED TO GRANT planning permission subject to a s106 agreement and the Conditions and Informatives set out in section 11 of the report.