Agenda item - BH2014/01001 - 243 Hartington Road, Brighton - Full Planning

Demolition of workshop and store and erection of a 3no bedroom house (CS) incorporating home office building to rear and bicycle store and parking space to front. (Retrospective).

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE

Demolition of workshop and store and erection of a 3no bedroom house (C3) incorporating home office building to rear and bicycle store and parking space to front. (Retrospective).

(1)             The Area Planning Manager introduced the report and gave a presentation by reference to plans, photographs and elevational drawings. The application site related to a semi-detached property on the eastern end of the road. The Committee had visited the site in relation to a previous scheme; the history of the site was detailed in the report and attention was drawn to a refused application in 2013. This application sought the demolition of the workshop and the construction of a three-bedroom house retrospectively. Comparison plans were used to highlight the original approved scheme and the application before the Committee; the main differences related to the removal of the basement elements from the scheme; changes to the rear dormer windows and a new structure in the rear garden. The main considerations related to the loss of the previous employment space; amenity; the standard of accommodation; transport; sustainability; tree matters; landscaping and ecology.

(2)             The loss of the employment space was considered in terms of policy and the site had been vacant for some time; the site was also not suitable in terms of its size and location and the change of use was appropriate. The design would form half of a pair of semi-detached houses and was appropriate which matching features on the front elevation. The dormer as constructed did not comply with the original permission, and that application had initially proposed an inappropriate large single ‘box-like’ dormer. During the application process Officers had successful negotiated amendments which complied with policy; however the scheme as completed did not comply and was considered to cause significant harm. It was noted that there were other existing similar dormers in the street, but these did not have any history of planning permission. For the reasons outlined in the report the application was recommended for refusal.

Public Speaker(s) and Questions

(3)             Mr Clive Stillman spoke in support of the application in his capacity as the applicant. He stated that the previous application had been due for consideration in February, but had been withdrawn due to legal issues. The sole reason for refusal now related to the rear dormer windows, and it was noted that Councillor Randall had been due to speak in support of the application, but had been unable to attend the meeting due to a prior engagement and had expressed support by email. The originally consent had been granted in 2012 and constructed in 2013, and the applicant fully acknowledged that the dormers were in excess of the original application. Reference was made to the presumption in favour of sustainable development in the NPPF. Mr Stillman stated that dormers to this extent could be built on a property with permitted development rights, but this property had no such rights and was expected to comply with policy in relation to dormers. Mr Stillman contended that policy was only guideline; the dormers could only be seen from the cemetery grounds and were more sympathetic to the host property and should not give rise to a reason for refusal. Mr Stillman asked that the Committee take a ‘common sense’ approach and approve the application.

(4)             Councillor Littman asked Mr Stillman why the application had not been built as per the original permission, and it was explained that the applicant bought the site with the planning consent and had been aware of the negotiations that had already taken place in relation to the permission. He had omitted the basement element for cost reasons and decided to increase the size of the dormers to maximise the roof space.

(5)             Mr Stillman confirmed to Councillor Wells that the dormers were approximately 1 foot larger than those in the original permission.

Questions for Officers

(6)             In response to Councillor Davey it was explained that the original application had negotiated amendments to the dormer windows as these had not been considered acceptable. It was perfectly appropriate for changes to be made during the building process and these to be agreed retrospectively; in this instance the changes that had been made during the build were contrary to the supplementary planning guidance.

(7)             Councillor Hyde asked about permitted development rights, and it was clarified that this development had permitted development rights removed due to concerns about additional development on a plot of its size. It was noted that normally permitted development rights would not be applicable until the property was occupied as a dwelling.

(8)             In response to Councillor Simson it was explained that during the life of the application the context of the neighbouring dormers would have been considered; however, no precedent would be set as the application site had permitted development rights removed.

(9)             It was confirmed for Councillor Wells that the dormers on the neighbouring building had been carried out under permitted development rights.

(10)          The agent confirmed for Councillor Gilbey that the property could not currently be sold as it did not have planning permission.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(11)          Councillor Wells noted there were other examples in the street that were overbearing, and the proposed dormers sat much better; he stated he would not support the Officer recommendation.

(12)          Councillor Hyde noted that she was against development without proper consent, but having been on the site visit she felt this was a ‘great’ property. She did not consider the dormers to be harmful, and the only place they could be seen was from the neighbouring cemetery at the rear. Previously the site had been a ‘scruffy’ workshop and this development balanced the neighbouring property creating a pair of semis. Councillor Hyde stated that she could not support the Officer recommendation on the basis of common sense, and added that she did not agree with the removal of the permitted development rights.

(13)          Councillor Littman stated that he agreed with the comments made by Councillor Hyde; whilst he understood the reasons for the Officer recommendation he felt the dormers caused no visual harm.

(14)          Councillor Davey stated he would support the Officer recommendation as he felt the Officer approach had been appropriate and was in line with policy.

(15)          A vote was taken and the Officer recommendation that planning permission be refused was not carried on a vote on 2 in support with 9 against. Following the vote reasons were proposed to approve the application and these were seconded. A recorded vote was then taken and Councillors: Jones, Hyde, Carden, Simson, Phillips, Gilbey, Littman, C. Theobald and Wells voted that planning permission be granted and Councillors: Mac Cafferty and Davey voted that planning permission not be granted.

7.6         RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into account the Officer recommendation, but resolves to GRANT planning permission for the reasons set out below:

i      On balance it is considered that the rear roof dormers are not of an excessive size in relation to the roofslope, are sympathetic to and balance up the pair of semi-detached properties and  do not create significant visual harm.

              Note: Councillor Hamilton was not present during the consideration and vote on this application.