Agenda item - BH2016/01020 - 4-7,9 & 15-20 Kensington Street, Brighton - Full Planning

Erection of 12no residential units comprising of 2no one bedroom houses, 1no two bedroom house and 9no one bedroom flats (C3).

RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

Erection of 12no residential units comprising of 2no one bedroom houses, 1no two bedroom house and 9no one bedroom flats (C3).

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

Officer Introduction

2)            The Planning Officer, Stewart Glassar, introduced the application and gave a presentation with reference to plans, photographs and elevational drawings. The site included three separate sites that would include 12 residential units. The three sites were used for car parking and covered 22 parking spaces and 14 were currently used. 

3)            It was explained that site one would contain two units, site two would contain two units and site three would contain six units. Site three would include a wheelchair accessible one bedroom flat on ground floor level.

4)            The design would be white brick with a dark roof and coloured panelling. The Planning Officers considered the materials to be appropriate for the area and the applicant had amended the application after comments at the pre-application stage. The roofs on the proposals would be slightly higher than the existing buildings in Kensington Street; however, there was variation of the roof heights in the area.

5)            Sites one and three had previously been granted planning permission for residential units and these proposals were very similar in size and scale to the currently proposed units. The rear elevations of the proposed units were minimalistic to protect the amenity of the neighbouring properties. It was noted that developing on the site was difficult as it was a small space; however, the Officers felt that the privacy of neighbours would not be compromised. It was noted that the proposed units would supply affordable housing and therefore; the Officer’s recommendation was to be minded to grant.

Questions for Officers

6)            In response to Councillor Mac Cafferty it was noted that there had been discussion regarding the graffiti walls on the current sites and it would be recorded. The Chair noted that it could be discussed at the Economic Development & Culture Committee.

7)            The Officer clarified to Councillor C. Theobald that there was not any parking proposed and it would have been hard to incorporate parking in the application. There was parking nearby and disabled blue badge holders would have the right to park temporarily in other places close to the properties. It was added that if a disabled person moved in, they could apply for a disabled parking bay.

8)            In response to Councillor C. Theobald it was explained that discussion had happened internally with the heritage officers regarding the height of the roofs. It was explained that if the roof height was reduced, it would impact on the eaves.

9)            In response to Councillor Morris it was clarified that the distance from the proposed dwelling and 18 Kensington Gardens was approximately two metres from the boundary to the proposed site and 2.5 metres from the window at the rear of the proposal and the existing dwelling.

10)         In response to Councillor Inkpin-Leissner it was confirmed that the previously application that was granted planning permission had slightly lower roofs and matched the existing neighbouring properties.

Debate and Decision Making

11)         Councillor Inkpin-Leissner noted he was satisfied with the solution for the graffiti. He was pleased with the design and the materials; however, noted concern for the white material may look dirty from pollution in the near future. He noted that he would be supporting the Officer recommendation.

12)         Councillor Morris noted that the Economic Development & Culture Committee should discuss the recording of the graffiti as it was unique in the area.

13)         Councillor C. Theobald noted concern for the roof height; however, explained it was an improvement on the current sites and it was positive to have additional housing in the city centre. She added that she would be supporting the Officer recommendation.

14)         Councillor Miller agreed with Councillor C. Theobald that housing was needed and praised the architect on the design.

15)         Councillor Hyde noted that she agreed with Councillor C. Theobald.

16)         Councillor Wares agreed with Councillor Miller and thought the scheme was well designed for a small space.

17)         Councillor Gilbey noted at the site visit she had noticed the different heights of the neighbouring properties and did not have concern for the proposed roof heights. She stated that she would be supporting the Officer recommendation.

18)         The Chair noted she was pleased with the design, that it reflected the quirkiness of the area, and that the units were in the city centre.

19)         The Committee agreed that an additional condition should be added requiring the graffiti on the current sites to be recorded.

20)         A vote was taken by the 12 Members present and the Officer recommendation that the Committee be minded to grant planning permission was carried unanimously.

62.2      RESOLVED – That the Committee resolves to be MINDED TO GRANT planning permission subject to a s106 agreement, the conditions and informative set out in section 1 and to a condition requiring the graffiti to be recorded.