Agenda item - BH2015/02713 - Kingsmere London Road, Brighton - Full Planning

Roof extension to Blocks E & F to provide 8no flats each with own private roof garden.

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Roof extension to Blocks E & F to provide 8no flats each with own private roof garden.

(1)             The Planning Manager, Major Applications (Paul Vidler) introduced the application and gave a presentation with reference to plans, photographs and elevational drawings; reference was also made to information contained in the late list. The application related to blocks E & F situated at the western edge of the site closest to London Road. The location of the cycle storage was highlighted for the Committee. This was a re-submitted application following a 2012 consent at appeal, and the scheme was recommended for approval for the reasons set out in the report.

Speaker(s) and Questions

(2)             Alan Moxhay spoke in opposition to the application on behalf of the Kingsmere Residents’ Association; he stated that he understood the Officer recommendation was in line with the decision of the Planning Inspector, and he highlighted that any reason to refuse the scheme needed to be in relation to new aspects or any that were not considered at the time. He went to highlight disabled access and asked that the Committee insist the lifts be adapted for wheelchair use. The proposed cycle storage at the site was greatly wanted by the residents and the delays in bringing forward the scheme meant that this much needed storage had not been built. Since the consent in 2012 the parking on the estate had reached saturation and the wider site needed a full traffic review.

(3)             In response to Councillor C. Theobald the speaker confirmed that there was planning permission in place to provide additional parking on the site, but this had not been implemented. It was also confirmed that the lifts would need to be adapted for disabled use.

(4)             In response to Councillor Inkpin-Leissner the speaker confirmed that the residents had no power to request that the leaseholder build the cycle storage.

(5)             The speaker also confirmed to Councillor Gilbey there were currently no disabled parking spaces on the site.

Questions for Officers

(6)             In response to Councillor Gilbey it was clarified that the current standard for lifetime homes was the Building and Regulation Optional Requirement; this was the standard the Local Planning Authority now asked applicants to comply with.

(7)             It was confirmed for Councillor Wares that the scheme was identical to the previous consent.

(8)             In response to Councillor Inkpin-Leissner it was confirmed that building regulations would require the lift to be suitable for disabled use. Councillor Morris queried if this were an infringement of equalities and the Planning & Building Control Applications Manager highlighted that there was no information on whether the lift currently complied or not.

(9)             In response to Councillor Gilbey it was confirmed that the transport assessment took into consideration approved but unimplemented schemes.

(10)          In response to Councillor Miller it was confirmed that the application was for eight additional flats, and it was not considered that s106 contributions were necessary to mitigate the impact of the development.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(11)          Councillor C. Theobald noted that there would be an impact on parking across the wider site if the scheme were implemented; she also felt residents were harmed through this type of development.

(12)          Councillor Morris stated that additional parking spaces should be provided for disabled users.

(13)          Councillor Deane stated that the proposals gave the blocks more ‘visual interest’, and she noted the points made by other Members in relation to disabled access.

(14)          Councillor Littman noted that the Local Planning Authority did not have the power to demand the lifts were suitable for disabled use. He highlighted that given the planning history at the site the Committee had little other option than to approve the scheme.

(15)          Councillor Miller noted he would support the scheme on the basis of the planning history; he did, however, express concern in relation to the piecemeal manner the applications were submitted and felt an application across the whole site would be more appropriate. The Planning & Building Control Applications Manager highlighted that informatives could be added to the consent drawing the applicant’s attention to the concerns of residents and the Committees in relation to: a holistic approach to the wider site; disabled parking, cycle storage and the accessibility of the lifts. The Committee agreed to add informatives to this affect.

(16)          A vote was taken by the 12 Members present at the meeting and the Officer recommendation that permission be granted was carried on a vote of 11 in support with 1 abstention.

106.5    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 and resolves to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives in section 11, and the additional informatives below:

              Additional Informatives:

i.       Planning Committee have notedthat there appear to be a lack of cycle and disabled parking across the estate and urge the owner to consider sufficient provision. 

ii.      The owner is urged to ensurethat sufficient provision is made for the lifts on site to be wheelchair friendly  

iii.    Planning Committee have noted that multiple and separate applications have been submitted over time by the same applicant within this estate.  These applications and the way they have  been submitted mean that it has been difficult for the LPA to assess impacts arising from proposals on the wider estate.  This approach is not consistent with the interests of proper planning.