Agenda item - BH2016/01000 - 238 Elm Grove, Brighton - Full Planning

Conversion of existing house to form 2 No. one bedroom and 2 No two bedroom flats (C3) with associated alterations including erection of a part one part two storey rear extension and installation of rooflights.

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE

Ward Affected: Hanover & Elm Grove

Conversion of existing house to form 2 No. one bedroom and 2 No two bedroom flats (C3) with associated alterations including erection of a part one part two storey rear extension and installation of rooflights.

(1)          The Planning Officer, Stewart Glassar presented the report by reference to elevational drawings and photographs showing the application site in the context of Elm Grove and its boundary with Hallett Road. It was noted that both letters submitted in support of the scheme by Councillor Page, one of the local Ward Councillors had been circulated to all Members of the Committee.

(2)          Reference was made to the previous scheme which had been refused and subsequently dismissed on appeal and the differences between the two were illustrated. Although the current scheme had been amended in order to overcome the previous reasons for refusaI, it was considered however, that the proposed extension was unacceptable in its own right and would result in a flank wall which would result in an excessively long building which would be out of keeping with the character of the area and would dominate the host building. This was supported by the previous appeal decision and the observations of the Inspector that a similar lengthy extension had an unacceptable visual impact.

(3)          Whilst there was no objection in principle to conversion of the property into flats, or to it being extended, the scale of works proposed was considered unacceptable by virtue of its size and the visual impact of the two-storey extension house and on the wider area. An extension which was more proportionate would improve the accommodation and amenity space provided. Whilst four flats would provide a contribution to the city’s housing supply this was not considered to be sufficient to outweigh the harm which would be caused to the character and appearance of the area by the proposed form of development. The proposed extension, by virtue of its length, bulk and overall scale of development relative to the size of the plot was considered to be overdevelopment and was therefore recommended for refusal.

Public Speakers

(4)          Mr Nash the applicant spoke in support of his application. He explained that discussions had taken place with the planning department and that further work had been undertaken to overcome the previous reasons for refusal. The proposals would improve the appearance of the building especially to the rear by removing the existing ugly flat roof extensions. It should be noted that the extension would be hidden behind the existing boundary wall and would replace the existing shallow poorly proportioned extensions (especially when viewed from the side) of the development. The application site occupied a substantial corner plot which was wider and larger than that of the neighbouring dwellings.

            Questions of Officers

(5)          It was confirmed in answer to questions that pre-application advice was not given in relation this type of application.

(6)          In answer to questions by Councillors Hyde and Morris it was explained that it was proposed that materials used would be matching brickwork with some render.

(7)          Councillor Hyde sought clarification regarding whether the proposed units were considered to be of an acceptable size, especially in the case of any units proposed in the roof space. It was confirmed that there was no objection in principle to units being placed in the roof space.

(8)          Councillor Cattell, the Chair asked to see floor plans of the proposed development including those relating to the ground floor extension.

              Debate and Decision Making Process

(9)          Councillor Morris stated he considered the development was acceptable and would not be overly dominant in the street scene and did not feel able to support the recommendation that the application be refused.

(10)       Councillor Miller concurred in that view considering that the proposed works would improve the appearance of the building by removing the existing ugly flat roof extensions. He considered that the Inspector’s reasons for refusal had now been overcome.

(11)       Councillor Mac Cafferty stated that given the corner location of the site he considered that there was the capacity to undertake the proposed works without detriment to the neighbouring street scene.

(12)       Councillor Moonan suggested that it might be appropriate to defer consideration of the application pending a site visit in order to better understand the building within the context of the surrounding street scene. That proposal was not however supported.

(13)       The Chair, Councillor Cattell stated that she considered that the creation of extensions in order to create additional units in the manner proposed represented bad planning practice and she therefore supported the officer recommendation.

(14)       Councillor Littman noted that as the application had been recommended for refusal the applicant had not entered into a travel plan. He requested that if planning permission was granted this be addressed.

(15)     Note 1: A vote was taken and of the eleven Members present when the vote was taken planning permission was granted on a vote of 7 to 2 with 2 abstentions. Councillor Mac Cafferty proposed that planning permission be granted for the reasons set out. Councillor Morris seconded the proposal.

            Note 2: A recorded vote was then taken. Councillors Bennett, Hamilton, Hyde, Littman, Mac Cafferty, Miller and Morris voted that planning permission be granted. Councillor Cattell (the Chair) and Councillor Gilbey voted that the application be refused. Councillors C Theobald and Moonan abstained. Councillor Inkpin-Leissner was not present during consideration of this application or when the vote was taken.

30.12    RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration the reasons for the recommendation set out in section 11 of the report but has decided to GRANT planning permission.

Reason for granting:

The proposed extension would not, by virtue of its length, bulk and overall scale of development relative to the size of the plot, represent a form of overdevelopment. The proposed development helps with housing delivery in the City. Conditions and Informatives to be approved by the Planning Manager.