No:

BH2021/02074

Ward:

Hove Park

App Type:

Full Planning

 

Address:

Nevill Court Nevill Road Hove BN3 7BS

 

Proposal:

Proposed roof extension with 12 PV panels to provide additional 4no. one bedroom flats and 3no. two bedroom flats with balconies, cycle parking and landscaping.

 

Officer:

Russell Brown, tel: 293817

Valid Date:

02.06.2021

 

Con Area:

N/A

Expiry Date: 

28.07.2021

 

Listed Building Grade:  N/A

EOT:

 

Agent:

Paul Jenkins SF Planning Limited 12 Royal Crescent Cheltenham GL50 3DA

Applicant:

SAA Investments Ltd C/O SF Planning Limited

 

 

 

1.               RECOMMENDATION

 

1.1.          That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out below and resolves to be MINDED TO GRANT planning permission subject to a s106 agreement on the Heads of Terms set out below and the following Conditions and Informatives as set out hereunder, SAVE THAT should the s106 Planning Obligation not be completed on or before the 4th November 2021 the Head of Planning is hereby authorised to refuse planning permission for the reasons set out in section 12.1 of this report.

 

Section 106 Head of Terms:

 

Affordable housing:

·      A commuted sum of £135,750

 

Conditions:

1.         The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved drawings listed below.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

Plan Type

Reference

Version

Date Received

Location plan

98-001

P02

2 June 2021

Block plan

98-100

P02

2 June 2021

Proposed Drawing

00-200

P03

2 June 2021

Proposed Drawing

00-201

P03

2 June 2021

Proposed Drawing

00-202

P03

2 June 2021

Proposed Drawing

00-203

P05

14 July 2021

Proposed Drawing

00-024

P03

2 June 2021

Proposed Drawing

00-220

P04

29 June 2021

Proposed Drawing

00-221

P03

2 June 2021

Proposed Drawing

00-230

P01

2 June 2021

Proposed Drawing

70-601

P01

2 June 2021

Report/Statement

Sustainability & Energy Statement

1.1

2 June 2021

 

2.         The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To ensure that the Local Planning Authority retains the right to review unimplemented permissions.

 

3.         Apart from demolition, no construction works of any part of the development hereby permitted shall take place until details of all materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, including:

a)      samples of all brick (including mortar colour, bonding and pointing) and zinc cladding;

b)      1:20 elevations and sections of the proposed windows and doors as well as product specification sheets; and

c)       samples of all other materials to be used externally such as roof covering.

Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development in the interests of the visual amenities of the area and to comply with Policies QD14 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan, CP12 of the Brighton & Hove City Plan Part One and DM18 and DM21 of the emerging Brighton and Hove City Plan Part Two.

 

4.         Access to the flat roof hereby approved shall be for maintenance or emergency purposes only and the flat roof shall not be used as a roof garden, terrace, patio or similar amenity area.

Reason: In order to protect adjoining properties from overlooking and noise disturbance and to comply with Policies QD14 and QD27 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan and DM20 and DM21 of the emerging Brighton & Hove City Plan Part Two.

 

5.         The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until details of secure cycle parking facilities for the occupants of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved facilities shall be fully implemented and made available for use prior to the first occupation of the development and shall thereafter be retained for use at all times.

Reason: To ensure that satisfactory facilities for the parking of cycles are provided and to encourage travel by means other than private motor vehicles and to comply with Policies TR14 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan and DM33 of the emerging Brighton & Hove City Plan Part Two and SPD14.

 

6.         14 swift bricks shall be incorporated within the external walls of the development hereby approved and shall be retained thereafter.

Reason: To enhance the biodiversity of the site and to comply with Policy CP10 of the Brighton & Hove City Plan Part One, DM22 of the emerging Brighton & Hove City Plan Part Two and SPD11.

 

7.         A bee brick shall be incorporated within the external walls of the development hereby approved and shall be retained thereafter.

Reason: To enhance the biodiversity of the site and to comply with Policy CP10 of the Brighton & Hove City Plan Part One, DM22 of the emerging Brighton & Hove City Plan Part Two and SPD11.

 

Informatives:

1.         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.

 

2.         In order to be in line with Policy TR14 Cycle Access and Parking of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan 2005 cycle parking must be secure, convenient (including not being blocked in a garage for cars and not being at the far end of a rear garden), accessible, well-lit, well-signed, near the main entrance, by a footpath/hardstanding/driveway and wherever practical, sheltered. It should also be noted that the Highway Authority would not approve vertical hanging racks as they are difficult for many people to use and therefore not considered to be policy and Equality Act 2010 compliant. Also, the Highway Authority approves of the use of covered, illuminated, secure 'Sheffield' type stands spaced in line with the guidance contained within the Manual for Streets section 8.2.22 or will consider other proprietary forms of covered, illuminated, secure cycle storage including the Police approved Secure By Design cycle stores, "bunkers" and two-tier systems where appropriate.

 

3.         The applicant is advised that accredited energy assessors are those licensed under accreditation schemes approved by the Secretary of State (see Gov.uk website); two bodies currently operate in England: National Energy Services Ltd; and Northgate Public Services. The production of this information is a requirement under Part L1A 2013, paragraph 2.13.

 

4.         The water efficiency standard required under Condition 8 is the 'optional requirement' detailed in Building Regulations Part G Approved Document (AD) Building Regulations (2015), at Appendix A paragraph A1. The applicant is advised this standard can be achieved through either: (a) using the 'fittings approach' where water fittings are installed as per the table at 2.2, page 7, with a maximum specification of 4/2.6 litre dual flush WC; 8L/min shower, 17L bath, 5L/min basin taps, 6L/min sink taps, 1.25L/place setting dishwasher, 8.17 L/kg washing machine; or (b) using the water efficiency calculation methodology detailed in the AD Part G Appendix A.

 

5.         Swift bricks can be placed on any elevation, but ideally under shade-casting eaves. They should be installed in groups of at least three, at a height above 5m height, and preferably with a 5m clearance between the host building and other buildings or obstructions. Where possible avoid siting them above windows or doors.

 

6.         Where possible, bee bricks should be placed in a south facing wall in a sunny location at least 1 metre above ground level.

 

 

2.               SITE LOCATION

 

2.1.          The application relates to a three storey L-shaped detached block of 24 flats dating from the 1930s and built in an Art Deco style on the junction with Nevill Road (A2023) running north-south and Nevill Avenue heading westwards. The building is set back and up from these streets by raised lawns with a flat roof, a brown multi-stock brick façade, white uPVC casement windows and projecting bays with the white corning line above protruding with them. To the rear (north west corner of the site), there is a row of six garages and one detached garage accessed from Nevill Avenue, a communal soft landscaped area and hardstanding for vehicle parking.

 

2.2.          Other than this building, the surrounding area is characterised by two storey semi-detached houses, although allotments and the Nevill Sports Ground are to the north / north east with the Greyhound Stadium to the east.

 

2.3.          The site is not within a conservation area, is not a listed building or within the vicinity of one and is not within a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ). However, it is within Source Protection Zone 1 and an Archaeological Notification Area

 

 

3.               RELEVANT HISTORY

 

3.1.          Pre-application advice PRE2021/00034 was sought for a roof extension to provide 7no. flats; 3, two bedroom and 4, one bedroom and advice was issued on 1 April 2021.

 

 

4.               APPLICATION DESCRIPTION

 

4.1.          Planning permission is sought for a proposed roof extension with 12 PV panels to provide an additional 4 one bedroom flats and 3 two bedroom flats (Use Class C3) with balconies, cycle parking and landscaping.

 

4.2.          Changes have been made during the course of the application to the size of one of the bedrooms and to rectify inconsistencies.

 

 

5.               REPRESENTATIONS

 

5.1.          Five (5) objections, four (4) of which are from properties directly affected, were received raising the following concerns:

·      Concerns over the restriction of light to existing residents and overlooking.

·      Concerns over potential damp issues due to some existing flats receiving less sunlight, and an increase in the areas which will receive no sunlight.

·      The noise disruption from work taking place to an already poor condition building would be huge and would go on for months, disturbing those working from home. Extra flats would mean an increase in noise.

·      If additional housing puts existing housing at risk of being uninhabitable, then the overall aim of the City Plan isn't achieved.

·      The height of the proposed building would be above the line of all the surrounding residential properties contrary to NPPF paragraph 118.

·      The additional storey will dominate the more domestic scale buildings.

·      The visualisation shows that the proposed flats would be materially out of character and not in keeping with the current building, and look top-heavy.

·      Carbon-reduction initiatives should be considered, i.e. a green roof.

·      As with refuse collection vehicles, larger construction vehicles won't be able to access the back of the site. This roundabout junction is regularly congested, so it should be explained how access, parking and materials storage would be achieved without significant disruption to residents, schools, public transport and nearby amenities.

·      Concerns about refuse capacity / storage given the lack of management. The bins should be housed at the rear of the building and only be on the public pathway on collection days.

·      The lack of extra car parking provision would cause a problem in an already overcrowded area, which is used by nearby office employees. It is unclear where the developers’ contractors will be parked during the build.

·      Concerns about subsidence caused affecting neighbouring properties.

·      Concerns over building on a roof which has clearly shown movement over time and on top of 3 storeys that have frequently shown wall tie failure.

·      The plans lack a fire escape and a standard rescue ladder is unlikely to reach the proposed rooftop development.

·      The existing and proposed principle elevations label 68 Nevill Road as no. 5 and 5 Nevill Avenue as 68 Nevill Road. The ‘red line' site boundary is also incorrect to the northern boundary.

·      There are no modern residential flats nearby, contrary to the assertion on page 2 of the Planning Statement.

 

 

6.               CONSULTATIONS

 

6.1.          Private Sector Housing: No comments

 

6.2.          Transport: Seek amendments or approve with conditions

 

 

7.               MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

 

7.1.          In accordance with Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, this decision has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in the National Planning Policy Framework, the Development Plan, and all other material planning considerations identified in the "Considerations and Assessment" section of the report.

 

 

7.2.          The development plan is:

·      Brighton & Hove City Plan Part One (adopted March 2016);

·      Brighton & Hove Local Plan 2005 (retained policies March 2016);

·      East Sussex, South Downs and Brighton & Hove Waste and Minerals Plan (adopted February 2013);

·      East Sussex, South Downs and Brighton & Hove Waste and Minerals Sites Plan (adopted February 2017);

·      Shoreham Joint Area Action Plan (October 2019)

 

7.3.          Due weight has been given to the relevant retained policies in the Brighton & Hove Local Plan 2005 according to their degree of consistency with the NPPF.

 

 

8.               RELEVANT POLICIES

 

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

 

Brighton & Hove City Plan Part One

SS1  Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development

CP1  Housing delivery

CP7 Infrastructure and developer contributions

CP8  Sustainable buildings

CP10 Biodiversity

CP12 Urban design

CP19 Housing mix

CP20 Affordable housing

 

Brighton & Hove Local Plan (retained policies March 2016)

TR7 Safe Development

TR14 Cycle access and parking

SU10 Noise nuisance

QD14 Extensions and alterations

QD15 Landscape design

QD27 Protection of amenity

HO5 Provision of private amenity space in residential development

HO13 Accessible housing and lifetime homes

HE12 Scheduled ancient monuments and other important archaeological sites

 

Brighton & Hove City Plan Part 2:

Policies in the Proposed Submission City Plan Part 2 do not carry full statutory weight but are gathering weight as the Plan proceeds through its stages. They provide an indication of the direction of future policy. Since 23 April 2020, when the Plan was agreed for submission to the Secretary of State, it has gained weight for the determination of planning applications. The weight given to the relevant CPP2 policies considered in determining this application is set out in the Considerations and Assessment section below where applicable.

 

DM1     Housing Quality, Choice and Mix

DM18   High quality design and places

DM20   Protection of Amenity

DM21   Extensions and alterations

DM22   Landscape Design and Trees

DM31   Archaeological Interest

DM33   Safe, Sustainable and Active Travel

DM40   Protection of the Environment and Health – Pollution and Nuisance

DM44   Energy Efficiency and Renewables

 

Supplementary Planning Documents

SPD03     Construction and Demolition Waste

SPD11     Nature Conservation and Development

SPD12     Design Guide for Extensions and Alterations

SPD14     Parking Standards

 

Other Documents

Urban Characterisation Study 2009

East Sussex, South Downs and Brighton & Hove Waste and Minerals Plan - Policy WMP3d and WMP3e

 

 

9.               CONSIDERATIONS & ASSESSMENT

 

9.1.          The main considerations in the determination of this application relate to the principle of development, the design of the proposal, landscaping and biodiversity, its impact on neighbouring amenity and on highways as well as the standard of accommodation created.

 

Officers undertook a site visit in relation to the present application following the protocols put in place due to COVID and therefore it is considered that the context of the development and the planning considerations relating to this are well understood.

 

Principle of development:

9.2.          Policy CP1 sets out the housing targets for the plan period with a provision target of 13,200 new homes for the city up to 2030. The Council's most recent housing land supply position against this minimum target was published in the SHLAA Update 2020 and shows a five-year housing supply shortfall of 342 (equivalent to 4.7 years of housing supply).

 

9.3.          However, on 24 March 2021 the City Plan Part One reached five years since adoption. National planning policy states that where strategic policies are more than five years old, local housing need calculated using the Government’s standard method should be used in place of the local plan housing requirement. In addition, following an amendment to the standard method set out in national planning practice guidance, from 16 June 2021 onwards Brighton & Hove is required to apply an additional 35% uplift as one of the top 20 cities in the urban centres list.

 

9.4.          The local housing need figure for Brighton & Hove using the standard method (including the 35% uplift) is 2,331 homes per year which gives a five-year housing supply shortfall of 6,604 (equivalent to 2.2 years of housing supply).

 

9.5.          As the Council is currently unable to demonstrate a five year housing land supply, increased weight should be given to housing delivery when considering the planning balance in the determination of planning applications, in line with the presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in the NPPF (paragraph 11).

 

9.6.          The scheme counts as a small 'windfall site', bringing the benefit of providing seven additional housing units to the city, which would therefore make a small, but important contribution towards the Council's housing target given the importance of maximising the use of sites.

 

9.7.          As a ‘windfall site’, Policy CP19 requires proposals to have considered housing mix and local assessments. Whilst the unit mix would be limited to one and two bedroom flats, it is considered that the amount of floorspace available over a single storey on top of the building limits the size of the flats and in this case it is preferable to maximise the quantum of development over the unit mix given the lack of land for housing in the city. Additionally, the location of the flats on the top floor of an existing block of flats is likely to make them less suitable for large family dwellings (three-plus bedrooms). This is because they would not benefit from any free car parking, practical external amenity space or separate living and kitchen / dining spaces. As such, the LPA considers the unit mix to be acceptable in this instance.

 

9.8.          This development would contribute towards meeting the identified housing needs of the city. As such, the principle of the development is considered acceptable. The acceptability or otherwise of the scheme is subject to the design, standard of accommodation, impact on neighbouring amenity and local highways network. This is discussed below.

 

Affordable housing

9.9.          As explained within City Plan Part One Policy CP20, the Council negotiates to achieve 20% onsite affordable housing provision on sites of between 5 and 9 (net) dwellings as an equivalent financial contribution. The net uplift on the site would be 7 dwellings.

 

9.10.       The calculation of the affordable housing contribution is set out within the Council’s Developer Contributions Guidance and since this site is within Zone 2, the amount payable would be £135,750. This shall be secured by a legal agreement.

 

Design:

9.11.       There is no in-principle objection to the upward extension of this building, however, the height, scale and massing as well as the materiality are key considerations as to whether such a proposal is acceptable. In this case, it is considered that a single storey extension would be appropriate bearing in mind the heights of buildings in the vicinity and its corner location.

 

9.12.       One of the objections refers to paragraph 118 of the NPPF in respect of the proposed development being above the line of all the residential properties surrounding it. Their comments specifically refer to point e): “support opportunities to use the airspace above existing residential and commercial premises for new homes. In particular, they should allow upward extensions where the development would be consistent with the prevailing height and form of neighbouring properties and the overall street scene, is well-designed (including complying with any local design policies and standards), and can maintain safe access and egress for occupiers.” The objector argues that the paragraph infers that upward extensions that are higher than the prevailing height and of neighbouring properties and the overall street scene should be refused. There is strong design rationale to providing additional height on prominent corners, such as the site this building is on, and the design is of a high quality. Moreover, safe access and egress for occupiers is maintained. The paragraph additionally gives substantial weight to the value of using suitable brownfield land, such as this site, and support the development of under-utilised buildings, especially if this would help to meet identified needs for housing where land supply is constrained. This is such a case in Brighton & Hove where it is constrained by the sea to the south and the South Downs National Park to the north.

 

9.13.       In the proposed visualisation, the roof form would step in and out like the projections to the front elevation of the host building, thereby providing an element of shelter above the proposed balconies. This design approach is successful in helping the additional storey to relate well to the host building, as well as providing more usable space balconies.

 

9.14.       The visualisation shows brick to match the existing and a grey coloured standing seam zinc cladding. It is considered that this material treatment prevents the building appearing top-heavy and is therefore acceptable in principle, subject to further detailing being recommended to be secured by a condition. The grey coloured cladding would match the colour of the window frames within the proposed extension, which is welcomed.

 

9.15.       In terms of the positioning and the scale of the windows and balcony doors, it is considered that they relate well to those on lower floors regarding alignment, style and size, particularly on the street-facing elevations. The toughened and dense opaque laminated glazing treatment in-between the aluminium railings to the balconies is considered acceptable, and would provide some screening to prevent any paraphernalia placed there by future occupier appearing as visual clutter in views from the street while still allowing light to pass through.

 

9.16.       It is worth noting that the application would involve the removal of what appear to be plant rooms and chimneys that have no architectural value with the proposed extension featuring PV panels and Automatic Opening Vents (AOV) to assist with heat and smoke ventilation. This is considered to result in an improvement to the streetscene.

 

9.17.       As such, the proposal would be of a high standard of design and would comply with City Plan Part One Policy CP12, Local Plan Policy QD14, emerging Policies DM18 and DM21 of City Plan Part Two, and paragraphs 127 and 130 of the NPPF that require developments to add to the overall quality of the area through being visually attractive as a result of good architecture, to be sympathetic to local character and the surrounding built environment, to optimise the potential of the site and to improve the character and quality of an area. Furthermore, the latter paragraph makes it clear that design should not be used as a valid reason to object to development where it accords with clear expectations in policies.

 

Impact on Neighbouring Amenity:

9.18.       Paragraph 127 of the NPPF outlines that planning decisions should ensure that developments create places that promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.

 

9.19.       In terms of overshadowing, the external amenity areas of 5 Nevill Avenue and 68 Nevill Road would pass the BRE criteria of at least 50% of their areas receiving at least two hours of sunlight or the areas that are not overshadowed being reduced to less than 0.8 times their former size on 21 March. It is noted that the grassed area to the rear of Nevill Court would fail to achieve the BRE criteria with only 32% of its area receiving at least two hours of sunlight and the area being 0.65 of the existing size on 21 March. The report does, however, note that the criteria is achieved two weeks later on 4 April with figures of 50% and 0.77 respectively. It is unclear how much value the existing residents give to this grassed area and whether it is actively used as an amenity space.

 

9.20.       In this particular case, the planning balance weighs in favour of the proposal given the seven new dwellings that are proposed, each providing an acceptable standard of accommodation through a generally well-designed extension to this building.

 

9.21.       It is not considered that any of the neighbouring residential properties would experience a significant loss of outlook or sense of enclosure.

 

9.22.       There are currently windows on the upper floors of the existing building providing opportunities for overlooking of neighbouring residential properties. As such, the new third floor windows are not considered to result in a harmful degree of overlooking. Whilst all views from the proposed balconies are new, they face onto Nevill Road and Nevill Avenue and therefore not do overlook residential properties.

 

9.23.       A condition is recommended to restrict access to the flat roof over the extension for maintenance or emergency purposes only.

 

9.24.       The proposal would lead to a maximum of 19 additional occupiers moving in and around the building. Given that there are already 24 flats within the building, the amount of additional noise and disturbance created within an already predominantly residential area, albeit close to busy roads, is not considered to be significantly adverse.

 

9.25.       As such, the overall impact on neighbouring amenity would, on balance, be considered acceptable and broadly in compliance with Local Plan Policies SU9 and QD27 and emerging CPP2 Policy DM20 which can be given significant weight.

 

Standard of Accommodation:

9.26.       Policy QD27 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan aims to secure a good standard of living accommodation for current and future occupiers in all new developments. Accommodation should therefore provide suitable circulation space within the communal spaces and bedrooms once the standard furniture has been installed, as well as good access to natural light and air in each habitable room.

 

9.27.       The 'Nationally Described Space Standards' (NDSS) were introduced by the Department for Communities and Local Government in 2015 to establish acceptable minimum floor space for new build developments. Although these space standards have not been formally adopted into the Brighton and Hove City Plan, Policy DM1 of Draft City Plan Part 2 proposes to adopt them and can now be given significant weight.

 

9.28.       The third floor plan gives Gross Internal Areas (GIAs) for each residential unit, which are all either compliant with or in excess with the figures in the NDSS. All the bedrooms would also be compliant with the NDSS. Internal floor to ceiling heights would be 2.5m and therefore acceptable.

 

9.29.       The proposed dwellings are all at least dual aspect and therefore provide sufficient cross-ventilation, outlook and natural light.

 

9.30.       The provision of external amenity space in the form of balconies for all the flats is welcomed, and they are considered of an adequate size to be useable. Screening treatment has been proposed to avoid privacy concerns between the balconies of Flats 5 and 6.

 

9.31.       As such, the proposed development is considered to offer acceptable living conditions for future occupiers, compliant with Local Plan Policies SU10, QD27 and HO5 and emerging CPP2 Policy DM1 (which can be given significant weight).

 

Impact on Highway:

9.32.       The site is considered to be in a sustainable location given it is a 16 minute walk or five minutes cycling from Hove train station and very close to bus stops on Nevill Road served by four routes plus a night bus. This is despite it being in an ‘Outer Area’ of the city as set out in SPD14. As such, it is suitable for further development in transport terms. This public transport capacity is therefore sufficient to handle the anticipated increase in trip generation.

 

9.33.       No car parking is proposed by this application, which is in line with SPD14.

 

9.34.       10 cycle parking spaces have been provided, which is more than the 8 spaces required by SPD14. These are mostly ‘long stay’ i.e. for residents so must be convenient, easy to use, secure, dry and well-lit. Some of the cycle spaces proposed cannot be accessed due to the sliding doors not being full-width, blocking access to five of the spaces. Since future users must be able to wheel a bicycle in and out of all of the spaces, it is recommended to add a pre-occupation condition requiring further details.

 

9.35.       Recycling bin storage is available on Nevill Avenue, but the existing refuse and recycling bin storage on site to the rear of the building would be utilised as shown on drawing no. 00-200 Rev P03 with bins collected as per the existing arrangements. The use of these facilities is welcomed.

 

9.36.       No alterations are proposed to the deliveries and servicing of the site, which is considered acceptable.

 

9.37.       As such, subject to the imposition of suitable conditions, the impact on highways would be acceptable.

 

Biodiversity and Landscaping:

9.38.       Details of the landscaping screening and the paving to the covered cycle store have been provided. The medium height laurel hedges would provide some screening to the cycle area, but doesn’t completely cover it creating a hidden space which can promote crime or theft. The lightly screened, yet still overlooked cycle store is considered to be in line with Secure By Design standards. The paving would be graphite coloured ‘Marshalls Drivesett Argent Priora’, which is permeable and therefore acceptable.

 

9.39.       City Plan Part One Policy CP10 and SPD11 require net gains for biodiversity and this can be achieved through the provision of bee and swift bricks. Conditions are therefore recommended to secure these.

 

Archaeology:

9.40.       As the site is located within an Archaeological Notification Area, a heritage statement has been provided. Given that this is a rooftop development, it is considered that no designated or non-designated heritage assets would be affected by the proposal.

 

 

10.            CONCLUSIONS

 

10.1.       The proposals would provide seven good quality dwellings in Hove, sustainability and biodiversity net gains, and it would generate some economic activity during construction work and from the spending in the local economy of the future occupiers; which are relatively significant benefits of the proposal. The LPA supports the high quality design of the extension, which would not have a significantly adverse impact on neighbouring amenity or on highways safety whilst providing an acceptable standard of accommodation. The proposal is therefore recommended for approval.

 

 

11.            COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY

 

11.1.       Under the Regulations of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) 2010 (as amended), Brighton & Hove City Council adopted its CIL on 23 July 2020 and began charging on all CIL liable planning applications on and from the 5 October 2020. The amount of CIL liability for C3 use in Charging Zone 2 is £150 per m². The exact amount will be confirmed in the CIL liability notice which will be issued as soon as it practicable after the issuing of planning permission.

 

 

12.            EQUALITIES

 

12.1.       Access to the proposed flats is via the existing internal staircases and external entrance doors facing Nevill Road and Nevill Avenue, which is considered acceptable. In this case, not providing a lift up to the additional floor is condoned given the difficulty of retrofitting one and the limited amount of floorspace available over one floor on top of the building. It is also noted that none of the flats would be wheelchair units.