Agenda item - BH2015/00445,Diplocks Yard, 73 North Road, Brighton - Full Planning

Erection of part single, part two storey building to provide 8no office units (B1) with side entrance door removed.

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Ward Affected: St Peters & North Laine

Erection of part single, part two storey building to provide 8no

office units (B1) with side entrance door removed.

(1)          The Chair, Councillor Cattell vacated the Chair during consideration of this application and Councillor Gilbey, the Deputy Chair took the Chair.

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

(3)          The Principal Planning Officer (Applications), Adrian Smith, introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to photographs, plans and elevational drawings. It was noted that the application site comprised a rectangular parcel of land to the rear of buildings on Queen’s Gardens and upper Gardener Street, Brighton. The site was accessed from an under croft beneath 73 North Road and sat within the North Laine Conservation Area. The site was currently in use as a flea market with fruit, vegetable and bric-a-brac stalls and included a number of timber and steel structures. Both the structures and the use of the site did not have the benefit of planning permission. As originally submitted the second floor elements would have been held within a mansard roof, however subsequent amendments had been received which would change the mansard to a pitched roof with a central ridge.

(4)          The main considerations in the determination of this application related to the principle of change of use, the impact of the proposed building on the appearance of the site and North Laine Conservation Area, its impacts on neighbouring amenity, and transport and sustainability impacts. Also material were the decisions of the Appeal Inspector relating to the previous schemes for B1 office use of the site, which had been dismissed, BH2008/02421 and BH2014/00603.

(5)          It was considered that the proposed development would provide modern office accommodation in a sustainable location within a building that would be of a suitable scale, form and appearance that would not harm the appearance of the site or North Laine Conservation Area, or significantly harm the amenities of adjacent occupiers, in accordance with development plan policies. Approval was therefore recommended.

              Public Speaker(s) and Questions

(6)          Councillor Deane spoke in her capacity as a Local Ward Councillor setting out her objections to the proposed scheme. Councillor Deane explained that she did not believe that the proposed roof arrangement would safeguard the impact on outlook for affected neighbouring residents nor was the scheme in keeping with the North Laine Conservation Area in which the site lay. The site was integral to the quintessential character of the North Laine and Brighton itself in that it was quirky and unique. The proposals would destroy what had become a popular market space and the cobbled yard, which was a rarity and represented an important relic of the area’s industrial heritage, would be lost.

(7)          Mr Blake and Ms Petrykow spoke on behalf of the applicants in support of their application. The proposals would provide 8 small office units which could be used as start up space and providing modern flexible accommodation.

              Questions for Officers

(8)          Councillor Barradell asked to see photographs showing the adjoining building in Upper Gardner Street and enquired regarding any restrictive covenants in place to restrict the height of new buildings on  the application site to no higher than single storey. The Legal Adviser to the Committee, Hilary Woodward, explained that this would constitute a private matter for agreement/enforcement between the parties involved and was not a planning consideration.

(9)          Councillor Littman referred to the grounds on which the previous application had been refused and the weighting, if any, which had been given to loss of the market space. The Legal Adviser to the Committee, Hilary Woodward stated that it was important for the Committee to be consistent in its decision making. It could expose the planning authority if the Committee sought to refuse permission for a structure similar to one which had previously been considered aacceptable.

(10)       Councillor Janio asked whether the site had been in use as a market at the time of the previous refusal. The market use appeared to have revived the site and he asked what weight could be given to this. It was explained that no planning permission was in place for use as a market, the site set outside the regional shopping area and there was alternative retail provision nearby.

(11)       Councillor Mac Cafferty referred to the North Laine Conservation Area Statement. No reference had been made to this site and he queried the reasons for that. The Planning Inspector had considered the proposals acceptable in general terms as a back land development. It could however be argued, in his view, that the proposed changes including the roof slope were at variance with the character of the area.

(12)       Councillor Barradell referred to the planning history of the site stating that a number of councillors now sitting on the Committee had not been party to those earlier decisions, as some elements had been dealt with by officers under their delegated powers she queried whether it would be appropriate for Members to revisit this application in the light of current circumstances. The Legal Adviser to the Committee re-iterated that whilst the Committee could consider all germane planning issues past decisions including those of the Planning Inspectorate were relevant, the Committee needed to be consistent in its decision making.

(13)       Councillor Miller sought clarification regarding the weight which should be attached to previous planning decisions in respect of the site.

              Debate and Decision Making Process

(14)       Councillor Morris stated that he was familiar with the location of the site, considering that the proposals would dwarf the neighbouring properties and were at variance with the prevailing character of the North Laines. The proposed development would not preserve the character and appearance of the site or the surrounding area and he could not support this application.

(15)       Councillor Gilbey was in agreement also considering that the5 arguments put forward relating to creation of employment were fatuous in that employment opportunities had been created by the existing thriving market.

(16)       Councillor Miller noted all that had been said but considered that small start-up offices of the type proposed were also needed in the city centre. He considered that the proposed scheme was acceptable.

(17)       Councillor Janio stated that previous decisions had not taken account of the thriving market that was now in situ. The proposed office development was not appropriate for this site and should be refused.

(18)       Councillor Barradell stated that she considered that the proposed scheme would destroy the character of the area, she also had concerns in respect of the height of the proposed development; in her view it would be too high.

(19)       Councillor Mac Cafferty stated that this application needed to be considered in the context of the history of both its locality and the wider North Laines and the rationale for its adoption as a Conservation Area. Very careful thought needed to be exercised in seeking to ensure developments here were in keeping with the prevailing character of the area. The urban grain needed to be protected and preserved. An urban development of the type proposed did not enhance that and he could not therefore support this application.

(20)       Councillor Littman concurred with all that had been said by Councillors Morris and Mac Cafferty, the proposed scheme would have a detrimental and negative impact in the immediate vicinity and on the North Laines and he could not support it.

(21)       A vote was taken and of the 11 Members present when the vote was taken voted that planning permission be refused on a vote of 10 to 1.

(22)       Councillor Littman proposed that the application be refused on the grounds set out below, this was seconded by Councillor Morris.

(23)       A recorded vote was taken and Councillors Gilbey (in the Chair), Barradell, Hamilton, Inkpin-Leissner, Janio, Littman, Mac Cafferty, Morris, A Norman and K Norman voted that the application be refused. Councillor Miller voted that the planning permission be granted.

45.4       RESOLVED - That the Committee resolves to REFUSE planning permission on the grounds that: The proposed development by reason of its height, scale, bulk and design does not enhance the positive qualities of the local neighbourhood and thereby fails to preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area. The proposed development is therefore contrary to Policies QD1, QD2 and HE6 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan 2005.

              Note: Having declared an interest in this application the Chair, Councillor Cattell vacated the Chair and left the meeting during consideration of the above application, taking no part in the discussion or voting thereon. Councillor Gilbey, the Deputy Chair took the Chair.