Agenda item - BH2015/00395, 251-253 Preston Road, Brighton - Full Planning

Demolition of non-original two storey link building. Erection of new 3no storey link building and conversion, extension and refurbishment works to existing buildings to facilitate creation of 25no apartments (C3). Erection of 7no single dwelling houses (C3) to rear of site to provide a total of 32no residential units, incorporating provision of new car parking, cycle parking and refuse stores, landscaping, planting and other associated works.

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE

Ward Affected: Withdean

              Demolition of non-original two storey link building. Erection of 3no storey link building and conversion, extension and refurbishment works to existing buildings to facilitate creation of 25no apartments (C3). Erection of 7 no single dwelling houses (C3). to rear of site to provide a total of 32 no residential units.

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

(2)          The Principal Planning Officer, Adrian Smith, introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to photographs, plans and elevational drawings. It was explained that the application site comprised a pair of linked three storey Victorian villas set in a substantial plot on the West side of Preston Road, at its junction with Clermont Road. The site fell within the Preston Park Conservation area and there were a number of mature trees on the site, 27 of which were covered by a Tree Preservation Order, the buildings were currently vacant. The main considerations in the determination of this application related to the principle of conversion, the design of the proposed extension and new buildings and their impact on the appearance of the site and Preston Park Conservation Area, the impact on the amenities of adjacent occupiers, the standard of accommodation to be provided, transport and sustainability matters. It was noted that the applicants had submitted a Statement of Heritage Significance to support their proposals; details of this and the Officer response to it were set out in the circulated Additional Representations List.

(3)          It was considered that the proposed link extension and development of seven houses in the rear gardens to the site, by virtue of their massing, layout, site coverage, detailing and material finish, would detract from the appearance of the period villas and permanently erode the original gardens to the site and the historic development pattern and setting of the Preston Park Conservation Area and that the proposal failed to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the buildings, site or surrounding Preston Park Conservation Area and was contrary to policies QD1, QD2 & HE6 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan and paragraphs 132 & 137 of the NPPF. This harm carried considerable importance and weight when assessed against Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and was considered sufficiently significant that it outweighed the public benefits of providing additional housing units for the city, including 40% affordable units, having regard to the absence of a five-year housing land supply. There was no evidence that the other public benefits of the development, could not be delivered under an alternative proposal that would have a less harmful heritage impact. Refusal was therefore recommended.

              Public Speaker(s) and Questions

(4)          Mr Barkway spoke on behalf of the applicant in support of their application. He stated that the applicants did not agree that the proposed scheme would be detrimental as it would bring two buildings which were currently empty back into use and would provide much needed housing.

(5)          Councillor C Theobald sought clarification regarding the colour of proposed finish to the building as that indicated on the samples displayed at the meeting appeared differ from that indicated on the submitted drawings.

(6)          Councillor Mac Cafferty also sought further clarification regarding the scheme and the finishes and detailing proposed.

(7)          Councillor Miller asked for the rationale behind the design of the scheme. It was explained that whilst preserving the existing buildings the link building would be necessary to join the constituent elements of the scheme. Councillor Miller asked whether the affordable units would be confined to the link building. Mr Barkway confirmed that the different types of tenure would be spread across the site.

(8)          Councillor Morris stated that the colour and size of the link building appeared to give the buildings a greater impact within the street scene enquiring whether the applicants would be minded to reduce them in height. It was confirmed that the Committee needed to determine the application as submitted.

Questions for Officers

(9)          Councillor Gilbey referred to the retaining wall at the site enquiring whether it was intended that this would be retained as did Councillor Barradell.

(10)       Councillor Theobald requested clarification regarding the siting of the main access road into the site.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(11)       Mr Gowans CAG, clarified that CAG had not objected to the scheme before Committee, rather than having indicated support for it.

(12)       Councillor Littman stated that there was a clearly identified need for housing in the city particularly affordable housing, it was a question of balancing the public benefit which would arise from the scheme against any potential harm, in his view there would be important public benefits.

(13)       Councillor C Theobald stated that whilst proposals to return the buildings to use were welcomed she was in agreement with the officer assessment that the bulk and massing of the scheme as currently presented was detrimental.

(14)       Councillor Miller concurred in that view stating that whilst not averse to development of the site, he hoped that if this application were to be refused that the applicants would present an amended scheme which was more appropriate.

(15)       Councillor Inkpin-Leissner indicated that the scheme as currently presented was unacceptable and that he supported the officer recommendation.

(16)       A vote was taken and planning permission was refused on a vote of 9 to 3.

33.1       RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in section 7 and resolves to REFUSE planning permission for the reason(s) set out in section 11 of the report.

MINOR APPLICATIONS