Agenda item - BH2014/03428, St Lukes Church, 64 Old Shoreham Road, Brighton - Full Planning

Demolition of existing side extension and erection of part one part two storey side extension incorporating a glazed pitched roof, alterations to windows and doors, installation of new ramped access, alterations to boundary walls and associated works.

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Ward Affected: Preston Park

Demolition of existing side extension and erection of part one

part two storey side extension incorporating a glazed pitched

roof, alterations to windows and doors, installation of new

ramped access, alterations to boundary walls and associated

works.

(1)             The Planning Manager (Applications), Nicola Hurley, introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to photographs, plans and elevational drawings. The application site was a red brick building located on the corner of the Old Shoreham and Stanford Road. Since the application was submitted the church had been included on the list of Local Heritage Assets and was described as a relatively modest but well-executed example of a late 19th Century church. To the north of the site was Stanford Road which was characterised by three storey Victorian terraced housing and Lancaster Road, characterised by semi-detached and terraced housing. To the south of the site on the opposite side of the road are purpose built blocks of flats. To the west of the site were detached and semi-detached houses in Old Shoreham Road. The main considerations in determining the application related to the impact of the proposed extension on the existing building and the wider street scene and the impact on existing residential amenity.

(2)             It was considered that the extension was well designed, sited and detailed in relation to the existing locally listed building on the site and would not cause detriment to the character of the surrounding area. The development would not have a significant impact on amenity for occupiers of adjoining properties or create significant travel demand and approval was therefore recommended.

              Questions for Officers

(3)          Councillor Barradell sought clarification of the distance between the existing building and the neighbouring building, the location of the toilets and measures which would be put into place to seek to ensure that no noise nuisance occurred, masking reference to noise complaints which had been received in the past. It was explained that these had been addressed and that the new building which would have to meet higher building control regulations would be far less likely to give rise to noise break-out problems.

(4)          In answer to questions by Councillor Hamilton regarding the location of halls 1 and 2 it was explained that hall 1 was the existing hall located within the church building itself and that it did not form part of this application.

              Debate and Decision Making Process

(5)          Councillors Barradell and Inkpin-Leissner considered that it would be appropriate for a condition to be added to any permission granted to ensure that adequate sound proofing measures were undertaken and the Committee were in agreement that this would be appropriate.

(6)          As there were no further questions or matters of debate a vote was taken and of the 11 Members present when the vote was taken planning permission was granted on a vote of 7 to 4.

45.5       RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in section 11 of the report and the policies and guidance in section 7 and resolves to GRANT planning permission, subject to the Conditions and Informatives set out in section 11 and to the additional condition set out below:

              Additional Condition 6:

No development above ground floor slab level of any part of the development hereby permitted shall take place until a scheme for the sound insulation of Hall 2 shown on drawing no.PL-108 rev.P6, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The measures shall be implemented in strict accordance with the approved details prior to the first occupation of the development and shall thereafter be retained as such.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the occupiers of adjoining properties and to comply with policies SU10 and QD27 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

Note: Councillor Gilbey was not present when the above application was considered and voted on.