Agenda item - BH2015/00544, Media House, 26 North Road, Brighton -

Alterations to main building to facilitate the conversion from office/general industrial (B1/B2) to form 3no. residential dwellings (C3). Extension to secondary building (The Coach House) to provide additional office space (B1), revised fenestration and associated works.

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Ward Affected: Withdean

Alterations to main building to facilitate the conversion from office/general industrial (B1/B2) to form 3no.residential dwellings (C3). Extension to secondary building (The Coach House) to provide additional office space (B1), revised fenestration and associated works. It was noted that one further letter of representation had been received setting out concerns in respect of the proposed office use, potential overlooking and pressure on existing on-street parking.

(1)             The Planning Manager, Major Applications, Paul Vidler, introduced the report by reference to plans including details of the existing and proposed floor plans, photographs and elevational drawings detailing proposed changes including those to the roof and to the Coach House. It was explained that permission was sought for conversion of the main building from office/general industrial (B1/B2) to form 3 residential dwellings (C3) including associated external alterations. The secondary building (The Coach House) would be extended to provide additional office space (B1), including associated external alterations. Amendments had been made during the course of the application which removed the proposed side extension to the main building and reduced the number of proposed dwellings from 4 to 3.

(2)          The main considerations in determining this application related to the principle of the development; visual impact of the external alterations; impact on amenity; and sustainable transport considerations. The loss of office use was considered acceptable in this instance and significant weight had been given to the previously approved prior approval application (BH2014/03962) which allowed conversion of the first and second floors to residential. The development would create an acceptable standard of accommodation for future residents. The proposed use and external alterations would enhance the character and appearance of the building and preserve the wider setting of Preston Village Conservation Area. It was not considered that the development would result in significant harm to neighbouring amenity through loss of light, outlook, privacy or increased noise and disturbance; approval was therefore recommended.

              Questions for Officers

(3)          Councillor Mac Cafferty sought clarification of the distance between the application site and the residential property located at 17 North Road and also sought confirmation regarding the configuration and specification of the proposed office space and whether the space would be utilised by one or several other users. Councillor Mac Cafferty also sought clarification regarding comments contained in the officer report in relation to policies EM5 and EM3 in relation to meeting the needs of modern employment uses and to the statement that in this instance Policy CP3 was considered to hold more weight than the Local Plan Policy.

(4)          Councillor Cattell, The Chair sought confirmation regarding the provision of bi-folding doors to the office. It was explained that these internal doors could be closed in cooler weather.

(5)          Councillor Barradell enquired regarding the planning history of the site and the weight attached to it, including the fact that prior approval had recently been given to the change of use of the first and second floors of Media House to form two self contained units. Councillor Barradell expressed concern that the Committee had not had the opportunity to consider an application for use as a live-work unit. Councillor Barradell also sought confirmation regarding the date of at which planning permission had been granted for the existing building. The Planning Manager, Major Applications, explained that he had been unable to ascertain when planning permission had been granted. Councillor Barradell queried whether the building had been erected without permission and it was confirmed that was unlikely.

(6)          Councillors Mac Cafferty and Littman sought confirmation regarding the level and siting of on-site parking and location and distances from the proposed scheme and neighbouring buildings. Councillor Littman referred to the fact that the letter of objection had been signed by Councillors A and K Norman, not solely Councillor K Norman as indicated in the report.

(7)          Councillor C Theobald enquired regarding the hours of operation of the proposed office use and parking associated it and the amenity space provided with each of the residential units. It was confirmed that each would have a rear garden.

              Debate and Decision Making Process

(9)          Councillor Barradell stated that she was dismayed that the Committee’s decision making appeared to be fettered as a result of previous decisions, she considered this was unfortunate, as she considered that a better scheme could have been brought forward. The legal adviser to the Committee, Hilary Woodward, confirmed that whilst every application needed to be considered on its merits, the Committee were charged with considering any application as submitted. Application BH2014/03962 was a material consideration in determining this application. The prior approval could be implemented which would result in loss of all the B1 employment floor space currently located on the first and second floors.

(8)          Councillor Mac Cafferty stated that he was of the view that there were no reasonable grounds for refusing the application and Councillor Littman concurred in that view. Both noted that future access to the site would be via Lauriston Road also considering that in view of the level of on-site parking to be provided there would not be a significant impact in the vicinity.

(9)          Councillors Gilbey and Simson stated that they considered the scheme was acceptable

(10)       Councillor Inkpin-Leissner supported the proposals which would provide family housing.

(11)       Councillor Cattell, the Chair considered that it would be appropriate for approval of materials to be delegated to the Planning and Building Control Applications Manager in consultation with herself as Chair, the Deputy Chair and both opposition spokespersons.

(12)       A vote was taken and on a vote of 11 with 1 abstention planning permission was granted.

82.1       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 set out in section 7 and resolves to GRANT planning permission subject to the Conditions and Informatives set out in section 11 and to the additional informative set out below.

            Additional Informative:

The details submitted in relation to external materials to discharge Condition 8 are delegated to the Planning and Building Control Applications Manager for agreement in consultation with the Chair, the Deputy Chair and the Opposition spokespersons.