Agenda item - To consider and determine planning applications on the plans list

(copy circulated separately).

(i)           SUBSTANTIAL OR CONTROVERSIAL APPLICATIONS OR APPLICATIONS DEPARTING FROM POLICY

A.           Application BH2009/03156, Wellesbourne Centre, Whitehawk Road, Brighton - Erection of part single storey part two storey building to accommodate library, café, offices and ancillary accommodation. Change of use of part of school from D1 to office B1. Creation of new disabled car park and diversion of existing public footpath and creation of new cycle/footway connecting to Whitehawk Way.

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

(2)          The Area Planning Manager (West), Ms Burnett gave a presentation detailing the scheme by reference to elevational drawings and photographs showing the existing and proposed elevations and indicating their appearance within their immediate setting and in longer views. Ms Burnett also referred to two further letters of objection which had been received stating that in their view the level of on site parking proposed was inadequate.

              Questions/Matters on Which Clarification was Sought

(4)          Councillor C Theobald referred to the TPO trees which were to be removed to enable the scheme to progress. She enquired whether any of them were Elm trees or good specimens, it was confirmed that they were not.

(5)          Councillor Kennedy enquired regarding the biodiversity measures proposed.

(6)          Councillor Cobb sought clarification whether the cycle route/ footpath would be separate or would be a shared space. It was confirmed that the space would be combined.

(7)          Councillor Smart sought clarification regarding the materials to be used in construction of the library. It was confirmed that these would compliment those of the school.

              Debate and Decision Making Process

(8)          Councillor Cobb expressed concern that a shared cycle/footpath could result in an increased risk of accidents. During the course of the site visit the previous afternoon a cyclist had been observed gathering momentum going downhill, in the event of a collision with a pedestrian serious injuries could result. Councillor McCaffery echoed those concerns. Whilst supporting the scheme overall she had misgivings in respect of this shared element of the scheme. It was explained that this proposal was comparable with solutions used elsewhere across the city.

(9)          Councillor Cobb enquired whether it would be possible to add a condition requiring that the cycle/ footway were separated. The Head of Development Control stated that it would not be appropriate to add  a condition, as this would not be enforceable, but that an informative could be added to any permission granted requesting the applicant to ensure that the most appropriate means of providing a safe walking /cycle route be explored. Councillor McCaffery stated that she still had concerns regarding the safety of that element of the scheme.

(10)       Councillor Davey stated that he considered that the available space was probably too narrow to provide segregated spaces. However, he supported the proposed informative. Councillor Smart concurred in that view given that there was a steep incline to one side of the site.

(11)       Councillor C Theobald stated that she supported the scheme which she considered represented a good design solution.

(12)       Councillor Kennedy stated that she considered the development had been well designed, although it was disappointing that the opportunity had not been taken to include more elements which supported biodiversity.

(13)       A vote was taken and the 11 Members present when the vote was taken voted by 10 with 1 abstention that planning permission be granted.

276.1    RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in paragraph 9 of the report and resolves to grant planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report and to the additional informatives set out below:

              6. The applicant is advised that a formal Stopping up Order for the current footpath crossing the site must be secured prior to any works affecting the footpath being carried out.

              7. The applicant is advised of the need to seek to ensure that all possible measures are taken and advice sought to ensure that the appropriate safety measures are provided in relation to the shared cycle/walking route.

              Note: Having declared an interest in the application Councillor Fallon-Khan withdrew during its consideration and took no part in the debate and decision making thereon. Councillor McCaffery abstained.

(ii)          MINOR APPLICATIONS

B.          Application BH2010/00097, Mill House, Overhill Drive, Patcham – Erection of 3 detached 2 storey dwellings and a single storey detached bungalow.

(1)          Members agreed that it would be beneficial to carry out a site visit prior to determining the application.

276.2    RESOLVED – That consideration of the above application be deferred pending a site visit.

C.          Application BH2010/00394, 7 Brunswick Street West, Hove – Change of use of ground floor store into 1 self contained studio flat.

(1)          The Area Planning Manager (East), Mrs Hurley gave a presentation detailing the proposed scheme. The application before the Committee that day as a re-submission of refused application BH2009/02388. The revised proposal now incorporated a studio flat instead of a one bedroom flat within the ground floor store, with the main open-plan studio room to the front. The bathroom would be located at the rear and would be served by the window granted planning consent and installed under BH2007/04452.

(2)          Reference was made to the observations received from the CAG and set out in the “Late Representations List “expressing their concern that external alterations to the windows had not been detailed. In consequence they had deferred making a comment. It was explained that Listed building consent was not required for the internal works proposed and that no external works to the building were proposed.

(3)          Mr Chavasse spoke on behalf of neighbouring objectors stating that they considered the scheme to be acceptable. Concerns remained however regarding the rear bathroom window, which if it was clear glazed would overlook a rear shared court yard area. It was often a condition of grant of planning permission that such windows were obscure glazed and top opening only. Local residents were of the view that this would be appropriate in this instance too.

              Questions/ Matters on Which Clarification was Sought

(4)          Councillor Davey stated that he had no objections to the scheme in principle but queried why obscure glazing to the bathroom window had not been sought in this instance. It was explained that the rear windows of a number of neighbouring dwellings and flats over looked this area a condition had been added, this could however be done if Members considered it appropriate.

(5)          Councillor Smart stated that he considered it would be appropriate to require the rear bathroom to be obscure glazed and for it to be top opening only, this would provide the necessary levels of light and ventilation without directly overlooking the courtyard area. That was the general consensus among other Members of the Committee.

(6)          A vote was taken  and on a vote of 8 to 2 with 2 abstentions it was agreed that an additional condition be added to ensure that the bathroom window overlooking the rear courtyard was obscure glazed and  hung so that it was top opening only. A further vote was taken and on a vote of 10 with 2 abstentions planning permission was granted.

276.3    RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in paragraph 8 of the report and resolves to grant planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report and to the addition of a further condition requiring the rear (bathroom) window to be obscure glazed and top opening only.

              Note: Councillors Cobb and Fallon-Khan abstained from voting in respect of the above application.