Agenda item - BH2015/01278, Warehouse 1A Marmion Road, Hove - Full Planning

Demolition of existing warehouse (B8) and erection of 4no two/three storey residential dwellings (C3) and offices (B1).

RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

Ward Affected: Wish

Demolition of existing warehouse (B8) and erection of 4 no. two/

three storey residential dwellings (C3) and offices (B1).

(1)          The Planning Manager (Applications), Nicola Hurley, introduced the application by reference to photographs, plans and elevational drawings. It was explained that the merits of the scheme had been substantially discussed as part of the preceding applications. The principle of demolition, the change of use, impact on the amenities of adjacent occupiers, standard of accommodation, transport and sustainability issues were found to be acceptable as part of the previous planning applications and subsequent appeal decision. The quantum, siting and scale of the development had not altered significantly and assessment of this application therefore mainly related to those aspects of the current scheme which differed from the previous application and related to the impact of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area and its relationship with “The Cottage”, which adjoined the site to the north. Reference was also made to the further representations which had been received and were set out in the “Additional Representations List” accompanied by the officer response to them.

(2)          It was considered that the proposed demolition of the building and the change of use of the site were acceptable having regard to the retention of employment floor space in the new scheme. The proposed development was considered to be of a suitable design standard that would not significantly harm the amenities of adjacent occupiers. Subject to appropriate conditions the development would meet the appropriate sustainability standards and provide safe parking for vehicles, in accordance with development plan policies. Approval was therefore recommended.

Public Speakers and Questions

(3)          Councillor Nemeth spoke in his capacity as a Local Ward Councillor setting out his reservations in respect of the scheme, whilst broadly supporting it he had some concerns specifically in relation to the relationship between the development and “The Cottage”. Whilst amendments had been made in order to address the previous reasons for refusal and decisions of the Planning Inspectorate to dismiss the previous appeals, he considered that changes made to address any potential harm to “The Cottage” were minimal, it would be completely dwarfed by this development. Late changes had been made to the colour of the render and brickwork, but had a more sympathetic scheme been devised from the outset it would have been built and occupied by now. If the Committee were minded to approve the proposed development he considered that it would be appropriate for the roof room to be removed as this would reduce the level of overlooking and would reduce the level of harm and loss of amenity to the neighbouring dwelling.

(4)          Mr Bareham spoke on behalf of the applicants in support of their application and was accompanied by Mr Turner, the architect who was available to answer any questions as appropriate. Mr Bareham stated that the applicants had sought to overcome the previous reasons for refusal and to achieve a more sympathetic form of development. There would be a gap between the development and “The Cottage” and the upper storey at that end of the development had been scaled back in order to address previous concerns. Whilst it had not been possible to address all concerns the current scheme had addressed them as far as it was possible to do so, a number of conditions were also proposed which would control the form of the development.

Questions for Officers

(5)       Councillor Janio explained that he had found the references to the planning history and constituent elements of the various schemes confusing and sought further clarification, the differences between them. The Planning Manager (Applications), Nicola Hurley did this by further reference to the submitted elevational drawings and plans.

(6)       Councillor Hamilton sought clarification regarding the height of the existing warehouse building and that of the new building. He also sought clarification of the rationale for the “redundancy” test being met as the requirements of the Local Plan did not appear to have been met. It was explained that the Planning Inspector had accepted the building as redundant for warehouse use, that was a relevant  planning consideration.

(7)       Councillor Littman requested that the material differences between the current scheme and the previous one be highlighted. The Chair also asked that a photomontage showing the scheme overall be displayed. In answer to further questions it was explained that the previous scheme had been refused by a Committee decision.

(8)       Councillor Mac Cafferty sought clarification regarding the sustainability level required to be met, levels 3 and 4 appeared to be referred to in the report. It was confirmed that the current scheme would be required to meet Code 4, a condition to that effect would be included in any planning permission granted.

(9)       In answer to questions from Councillor Morris it was explained that details of the cladding to be used would be required under Condition 9.

(10)     Councillor Gilbey requested details of the amenity space to be provided, the distance and height of the building in relation to its neighbours and the buildings on Mainstone Road.

(11)     Councillor Janio referred to the previous decision of the Planning Inspector and it was explained that the previous appeal had been dismissed on only two grounds, the Inspector had considered that all other elements of the scheme were acceptable.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(12)       Councillor Barradell stated that she had not been involved in making the previous decision and was concerned that an old building (1898), of character would be lost and replaced by a less sympathetic structure. In her view there had been no attempt to respect the neighbouring cottage or street scheme. The proposal was completely at variance with that. The existing building should be retained and works undertaken to the existing envelope.

(13)       Councillor Morris stated that whilst he respected the Inspector’s decision he did not agree with it. He was concerned that due to the height of the development there would be a significant degree of overlooking into the bedrooms of neighbouring dwellings including those located on the opposite side of the road. He did not feel able to support the proposed scheme.

(14)       Councillor Miller stated that notwithstanding the fact that he had some reservations regarding the scale of the development he understood that the Planning Inspector’s decision was a relevant planning consideration. He welcomed the greater use of brick which represented an improvement to the scheme.

(15)       Councillor Mac Cafferty stated that it was important to recognise that the building although old was not protected, had not been listed or recorded as being of importance on either the Local List or elsewhere. The Inspector’s decisions had found demolition of the building was acceptable and that ultimately except on two grounds the scheme overall was acceptable. The previous decisions and those of the Planning Inspectorate were relevant in considering in considering and determining the application.

(16)       Councillor K Norman stated that he considered that the building was too tall and he was concerned that the top floor rooms would be main living accommodation, which would give rise to a greater degree of overlooking. He considered that the scheme would be more acceptable if the top floor were to be removed.

(17)       Councillor Janio concurred with Councillor Norman asking whether it would be possible to ask the applicant’s representatives if they would agree to that element of scheme being amended. The Planning Manager (Applications), Nicola Hurley explained that the Committee needed to determine the application as submitted, if significant changes were made that would constitute a different scheme.

(18)       Councillor Littman stated that he considered the Committee’s hands were tied to a degree as a result of the Inspector’s previous decisions. It was unfortunate the existing building had not been protected by inclusion on the Local List, but it had not. He found it hard to support the proposed considered it was difficult to refuse it given its planning history.

(19)       Councillor Gilbey stated that she considered that this scheme was as overly dominant as the previously refused scheme. The matter was one of “balance” and on balance she did not consider that the scheme was acceptable and she would not be voting in support of it.

(20)       Councillor Hamilton agreed, the Committee had previously been of the view that the scheme was not in keeping with the neighbouring street scene and that it detracted from its neighbours. He considered that was still the case and could not support this application.

(21)       Councillor Cattell, the Chair, stated that she concurred with the comments made by Councillor Mac Cafferty considering that the previous grounds for refusal had been overcome.

(22)       A vote was taken and on a vote of 8 to 2 with 2 abstentions planning permission was refused.

(23)       Councillor Barradell proposed that the application be refused on the grounds set out below, this was seconded by Councillor Janio.

(24)       A recorded vote was then taken and Councillors Barradell, Gilbey, Hamilton, Inkpin-Leissner, Gilbey, Morris, A Norman and K Norman voted that the application be refused. Councillor Cattell, the Chair and Mac Cafferty voted that minded to grant permission should be given and Councillors Littman and Miller abstained.

45.9       RESOLVED - That the Committee resolves to REFUSEplanning permission on the grounds that the proposed development by reason of its height and scale would represent an incongruous feature in the street scene and would also result in the new development having a dominating relationship with the surrounding houses. The proposed development was therefore contrary to policies QD1 and QD2 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan 2005.