Agenda item - BH2013/01112 - Land Rear of 37 & 38 Cromwell Road, Hove - Full Planning Permission- Erection of two storey three bedroom eco house with associated improvements.

Erection of two storey three bedroom eco house with associated improvements.

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE

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

(2)       The Area Planning Manager, Mrs Hurley, gave a presentation and detailed the proposed scheme by reference to plans and block plans and photographs showing the site, including from above showing it in relation to the rear of neighbouring properties and in relation to the neighbouring plots. The site comprised open land to the rear of 37 and 38 Cromwell Road with the street frontage onto Wilbury Villas. Ground levels across the site fell away from Wilbury Villas to an considerable extent with the rear of the site being considerably below street level. At the present time the site was enclosed by fencing and was overgrown. The adjoining buildings in Cromwell Road, to the south of the site, were large Victorian gault brick semi-detached villas with slate roofs. To the north was a 1960’s 4/5 storey block of flats, Stirling Court. The site adjoined the Willett Estate Conservation Area and lay to the west of a Grade II Listed building, 39 Cromwell Road.

(3)       As a result of ground level changes across the site the dwelling would be single storey above the level of Wilbury Villas and two storey to the side and rear and would incorporate a flat roof form accommodating angled photovoltaic panels and a green roof. Hedgerow planting was proposed to the front and side boundaries of the site.

(4)       The planning history of the site was important because although the applicant had identified the site as being vacant land with no previous use, there appeared to be some previous landscaping of the site but based on the information submitted, the planning authority considered the land to be private open space. Policy QD20 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan did not support development of an open space unless there were exceptional circumstances for developing the area. The proposal would involve the loss of open space which was considered important to the setting of the Willett Estate Conservation Area and the wider street scene. It was also considered to be contrary to policy QD20 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan. It was also considered to be contrary to QD1, QD3, QD4 and HE3 and HE6 to virtue of its bulk form and massing in close proximity to neighbouring boundaries and that it would result in an excessive, overbearing and un neighbourly form of development, both within the neighbouring street scene and in the context of the adjacent listed building. It was considered that the scheme represented a cramped form of development.

(5)       The decision of the Planning Inspectorate in relation to an earlier appeal was important as it had been dismissed and in doing so the Inspector had agreed with the grounds on which planning permission had been refused with the exception of those relating to the quality of the development and private amenity space. It was considered that the proposed form of development would result in a harmful loss of openness which contributed to the neighbouring street scene, conservation area and listed building and would constitute a contrived form of development. The proposal would fail to emphasise and enhance the positive qualities of the local neighbourhood, nor preserved the character or appearance of the conservation area and refusal was therefore recommended.

Public Speakers and Questions

(6)       Mr Hedley spoke on behalf of the applicants in support of their application. He explained that the applicant did not agree that the site was represented an open space. It was currently an overgrown eyesore and the proposal represented the opportunity to provide a high quality sustainable modern building which would meet lifetime homes standards and would achieve Code Level 5. The building would be small scale, would have a low impact on neighbouring dwellings and would be effectively screened as a result of the changes in level across the site. Local Ward Councillors had also indicated their support for the scheme.

            Questions for Officers

(7)       Councillor Gilbey sought clarification regarding objections received, particularly from those occupying basement flats to the rear of the site in Wilbury Villas.

(8)       Councillor Robins queried whether the site would constitute loss of open space, given that there was no public access to the site. The Area Planning Manager stated that the land was considered to be private open space and as such provided a space between all of the neighbouring properties.

            Debate and Decision Making Process

(9)       Councillor Bowden stated that he considered that the site was a weed choked eyesore which did not contribute positively to the character of the neighbouring street scene. The proposal represented a good use of the site and a significant improvement on its current state and would provide a high quality modern dwelling which would provide much needed accommodation.

(10)     Councillor Phillips stated that all of the Local Ward Councillors supported the scheme and was in agreement that the application would improve the site and provide a much needed additional property in the area. Currently the site was a complete mess.

(11)     Councillor Robins stated that he was concerned that if approval was given in this case other developers might put  forward proposals for  housing development on back land sites which had become overgrown.

(12)     Councillor Gilbey stated that she considered that it was important to protect the amenity of neighbouring residents by maintaining a gap between the properties. The proposed form of development would be overbearing and would overshadow the basement flats in Wilbury Villas.

(13)     Councillor Wells concurred in that view considering that that the amenity of neighbouring residents should be protected.

(14)     Councillor Shanks stated that it had been clear at the site visit that the site was completely overgrown. Also, CAG supported the principle of the development albeit that they would have preferred a pitched roof development. She considered that an exception should be made to policy in this instance and did not agree that the development would have the negative impact suggested.

(15)     Councillor Jones stated that he considered the proposals represented clever use of an awkward site. The form of the development could be controlled by condition.

(16)     The Development Control Manager stressed that it was important for Members to set to one side their views regarding the current condition of the site and to consider the application in the context of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

(17)     A vote was taken and following an initial vote of 7 to 5 for the grant of planning permission the proposer, Councillor Bowden and seconder Councillor Jones put forward the reasons for grant which were then agreed and voted on by the Committee. Following a recorded vote planning permission was granted on a vote of 7 to 5 as set out in Paragraph 43.4 below.

43.4    RESOLVED - That the Committee is MINDED TO GRANT planning permission as the proposed scheme was considered to be of a good design, represented good used of an awkward site, that it had no value as an open space and that it had an acceptable impact on residential amenity. The Committee were satisfied with the visual impact on the listed building and that it would enhance the visual amenity of the area. Conditions for grant of planning permission to be agreed by the Chair, proposer and seconder in consultation with the Development Control Manager.

This decision is based on the drawings listed below:

Plan Type Reference Version Date Received

Proposed Floor Plans & Sections AD100 - 08/04/2013

Proposed Elevations AD101 - 08/04/2013.

            Note1 : A vote was taken and it was agreed that planning permission be granted on a vote of 7 to 5.

            Note 2 : Following proposal of the grounds for approval of planning permission by Councillor Jones which were seconded by Councillor Shanks a recorded vote was taken. Councillors Mac Cafferty (Chair), Councillor Jones (Deputy Chair), Bowden, Cox, Phillips, Shanks and Wells voted that planning permission be granted. Councillors Gilbey, Hyde, Hamilton, Robins and C Theobald voted that planning permission be refused therefore planning permission was granted on the grounds set out above.