Agenda item - BH2015/02786 - Land to Rear of 101 Roundhill Crescent, Brighton - Full Planning

Erection of two storey, three bedroom dwelling (C3).

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE

Erection of two storey, three bedroom dwelling (C3).

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

(2)             The Principal Planning Officer (Liz Arnold) introduced the item and gave a presentation in respect of application BH2015/02786 for full planning and application BH2015/02796 for listed building consent by reference to plans, photographs and elevational drawings; attention was also drawn to the late list and a further representation that had been received – neither raised any new material considerations. The application site related to the rear of 101 Roundhill Crescent; Nos. 101-113 Roundhill Crescent were listed properties and the application would result in the subdivision of the garden area. A number of improvements were proposed to No. 101, but these were not considered as part of the application. The break created at the end of the terrace had open views towards Race Hill and Tenantry Down and gave relief in an otherwise dense residential area. The standard of accommodation was considered poor as one of the bedrooms was within the eaves and only served by a single rooflight. The proposal was considered out of character with the adjoining property on D’Aubigny Road; it was also considered overbearing and would create a sense of enclosure at 103 Roundhill Crescent. It was not considered that the advantages of the scheme would outweigh the harm. In relation to the listed building consent this was recommended for refusal in the absence of an acceptable scheme, and the loss of the historic wall would be harmful to the conservation area. Both applications were recommended for refusal for the reasons set out in the report.

Speaker(s) and Questions

(3)             Steven Rimington spoke in opposition to the scheme in his capacity as a local resident; he stated that he was speaking on behalf of other local residents in objecting to the scheme. He expressed concern in relation to the mass and bulking that had formed the reasons for refusal of previous schemes on this site. This application did not resolve the previous reasons for refusal and it would greatly reduce the open space between the buildings that had existing for over 100 years and ensured open views to the Downs, which local policy also sought to protect.  He considered there to be issues with the design which did not enhance or preserve the conservation area.

(4)             The speakers confirmed for Councillor Miller that there was no No. 2 D’Aubigny Road.

(5)             Wendy Jamieson spoke in support of the applications in her capacity as the applicant; she was assisted by her planning agent. She stated that 101 Roundhill Crescent had been her home for all of her adult life, and the area of land concerned was not a garden, but a separate piece of land. She explained she had been responsible for the maintenance of 101 Roundhill Crescent since November 2014. The scheme would make improvement works to 101 Roundhill Crescent possible. She highlighted comments from the Heritage Officer that much of the historic gap would be retained – enough for sufficient views and openness. The Heritage Officer had not objected to the principle of the development, and it was considered that these views had not been properly taken account of by the Case Officer. The Committee were asked to approve the scheme.

(6)             In response to Councillor Miller the speakers explained that a comprehensive heritage report had been undertaken which recommended that the scheme mirror the property at No. 4; were the ridge height lowered then the effect of ‘pairing’ would be lost. The proposed building stepped forward to reflect this feature of the other buildings in the road.

(7)             In response to Councillor Littman the speakers confirmed that it was their view the plot of land may have been originally intended as No. 2.

Questions for Officers

(8)             In response to Councillor Miller the Case Officer confirmed that Officers were not of the view that the building line stepped forward.

(9)             In response to Councillor Wares it was confirmed by Officers that the properties along Roundhill Crescent had been built first; with those on D’Aubigny Road following later. It was highlighted that the plot sizes varied.

(10)          In response to Councillor Morris it was confirmed that the listed wall was in the bungaroosh building style.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(11)          Mr Hinton stated that the CAG were recommending approval of the scheme, and they had noted the deteriorated condition of 101 Roundhill Crescent. Whilst there would be some be some loss of the historic break this would be largely maintained; it was considered that this application was a matter of weighing the costs and benefits and the CAG were minded to believe the gains were greater across the wider site including 101 Roundhill Crescent whereas Officers had taken a different view. They believed the new property was sympathetically designed and picked out features from its context; Mr Hinton also highlighted some minor detailing that could be included were the Committee minded to grant the application.

(12)          Councillor Miller stated he would support both Officer recommendations; he was not opposed to the principle of the development, but considered a more subservient scheme would be appropriate.

(13)          Councillor Morris agreed with Councillor Miller and stated he would support the Officer recommendations.

(14)          Councillor Wares noted he has less concerns with the reduction in the break; however, he was of the view that the approach taken by the applicant would not work for the street scene.

(15)          Councillor Gilbey noted that a number of similar applications had come to the Committee in the last few years that sought some loss of the historic break between buildings; she felt the Committee had recognised the importance of these breaks and for this reason she would support the Officer recommendation.

(16)          A vote was taken by the 11 Members present and the Officer’s recommendation that planning permission be refused was carried unanimously.

106.3    RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration the recommendation and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in section 11 and resolves to REFUSE permission for the reasons set out below:

              Reasons for Refusal

i.          The proposed development by reason of siting, design, height, detailing and the required reduction in the plot size of 101 Roundhill Crescent would result in a development that would erode and fail to reflect the immediate character of the D’Aubigny Road and Roundhill Crescent street scenes and the wider area including the surrounding Round Hill Conservation Area, compromising the quality of the local environment. Furthermore the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposal would not have significant adverse impacts upon the break in the roofline/building line of the existing dense urban built form of the area. The proposal would represent an incongruous development. This identified harm would outweigh the benefit of additional housing and as such is contrary to policies QD1, QD2, QD3 and HE6 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

ii.         The proposal includes insufficient public benefits to outweigh the harm to the setting of the Listed Building and Round Hill Conservation Area caused by the proposal, namely the partial loss of the existing open space gap between no. 4 D’Aubigny Road and 101 Roundhil Crescent, the general design of the proposed dwelling and the loss of parts of the historic boundary walls, by virtue of the failure of the applicant to include the proposed works to 101 Roundhill Crescent, as set out in the Design and Access Statement within the plans submitted as part of the application. As such the proposal is contrary to policies QD1, QD2, HE1, HE3 and HE6 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

iii.        The proposed alterations to the existing historic western boundary wall, namely the provision of piers and cappings to match those at 4 D’Aubigny Road, would result in a boundary treatment out of keeping with the historic front boundaries in the D’Aubigny Road street scene and the surrounding Conservation Area. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies QD1, QD2, HE1, HE3 and HE6 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

iv.        In the absence of an acceptable scheme for the development of the site, the demolition of parts of the historic wall would result in loss of historic fabric and form and a gap in the boundary of 101 Roundhill Crescent harmful to the character and appearance of the listed wall and the setting of 101 Roundhill Crescent and the surrounding Conservation Area. As such the proposal is considered contrary to policies HE1 and HE6 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

v.         The proposed dwelling would result in a roofspace bedroom providing unacceptable and poor standard of accommodation for future occupants due to limited headroom, circulation space and outlook. This would result in an. The development is therefore contrary to policy QD27 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

vi.        The proposed south facing window/glazed doors would represent an unneighbourly form of development by virtue of resulting in actual and perceived overlooking and loss of privacy to the occupiers of the flats located in 101 Roundhill Crescent. As such the proposal would have a harmful impact on neighbouring amenity contrary to policy QD27 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

vii.      The proposal by virtue of its scale, bulk and massing close to the boundary with no. 103 Roundhill Crescent would represent an unneighbourly form of development which would appear overbearing and oppressive when viewed from the garden areas of neighbouring properties located to the east of the site and a development that results in a sense of enclosure to the garden area of no. 103 Roundhill Crescent. As such the proposal would have a harmful impact on neighbouring amenity and is contrary to policy QD27 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

viii.     The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the development would accord to the Building Regulations Optional Requirement M4(2) (accessible and adaptable dwellings) contrary to policy HO13 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

Informatives:

i.          In accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy SS1 of the Brighton & Hove City Plan Part One (submission document) the approach to making a decision on this planning application has been to apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development. The Local Planning Authority seeks to approve planning applications which are for sustainable development where possible.

Note: Councillor Cattell withdrew from the meeting for the reasons stated at minute item 101 B). Councillor Gilbey, the Deputy Chair, assumed the Chair for the consideration of applications C) & D).