Agenda item - BH2016/01784 - 113 Trafalgar Road, Portslade - Outline Application All Matters Reserved

Outline application with some matters reserved for the demolition of existing bungalows and erection of 8no one bedroom flats and 4no studio flats (C3) with associated landscaping.

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSEE

Outline application with some matters reserved for the demolition of existing bungalows and erection of 8no one bedroom flats and 4no studio flats (C3) with associated landscaping.

Officer Presentation

1)               The Planning Officer introduced the application and gave a presentation with reference to plans, photographs and elevational drawings; attention was also drawn to matters on the Late List, including the correct site address as 113-115 Trafalgar Road. The application proposed the demolition of the existing bungalows and the erection of eight, 1 bedroom flats and four studio flats. The application was before the Committee with a recommendation of ‘would have refused’ as the applicant had lodged an appeal for non-determination within the 13 week statutory deadline. The Committee were being asked to consider the Officer’s recommended refusal and, if agreed, these would form the reasons at appeal. In relation to the determination of the application an extension to the time limit had been agreed with the applicant to allow further discussions to take place, an agreement had not been reached and the appeal was then lodged; it was also noted that no pre-application advice had been given.

2)               The two bungalows that comprised the site were the only two of their type in the area; outline permission had been previously approved for their demolition with design, materials and landscaping matters reserved. This application was for demolition and the erection of the new building, but the details on the plans were indicative only. The site would have a gabled roof, with private amenity space to the rear and private parking at the front. Officers would have recommended refusal; firstly due to the proposed mix of units, Officers had requested a revision, but this had not been forthcoming. The second reason related to the provision of developer contributions including affordable housing; the LPA was seeking 30% which could be delivered on site, or as a commuted sum. However, the applicant had not offered any affordable housing, nor had any viability assessment been undertaken. Concerns had also been raised in relation to the design and detailing; however, these were part of the reserved matters. The Committee were asked to agree with that Officer position that they would have refused the application were it determined by the LPA.

Questions for Officers

3)               In response to Councillor Russell-Moyle it was clarified that the applicant had agreed to the extension of time; they had not objected to the principle of affordable housing, but felt the level proposed by the LPA was too high; they had not offered any viability assessment.

4)               In response to Councillor C. Theobald it was clarified that the extension of the time limit had been agreed with the applicant to allow them to make amendments for a more acceptable scheme. However, the applicant had not been able to make sufficient changes to overcome the likely reasons for refusal, when this had become apparent negotiations ceased and the appeal was submitted.

Debate and Decision Making Process

5)               Councillor Moonan stated that the application was overdevelopment; it did not look in-keeping with the area and she was disappointed no agreement had been reached on affordable housing. She would support the Officer recommendation.

6)               Councillor C. Theobald noted that houses would be a much better use of the plot; she agreed the application was overdevelopment and would support the Officer recommendation.

7)               The Chair then put the application to the vote and the Officer recommendation that the application would have been refused was carried by the 11 Members unanimously.

121.1    That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out below and resolves that it WOULD HAVE REFUSED planning permission, had an appeal against non-determination not been made, for the following reasons:

i)        The proposed provision of 8 no. 1 bed and 4no. studio flats on this site would not reflect the urban grain of the area or the surrounding context, therefore failing to emphasise and enhance the positive qualities of the local neighbourhood, and would represent overdevelopment. The proposal is thereby         contrary to Brighton & Hove City Plan Part One policies CP12, CP19 and SA6.

ii)       The applicant has not committed to complying with the requested developer contributions, towards affordable housing, open space and indoor sport, sustainable transport, and the Council's local employment scheme, and has not justified this through a financial viability assessment of the scheme, contrary to Brighton & Hove City Plan Part One policies SA6, CP2, CP7, CP9, CP16 and CP20.

              Informatives:

i)          In accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy SS1 of the Brighton & Hove City Plan Part One 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.

ii)         This decision is based on the drawings received listed below: