Agenda item - BH2016/01756 - 18-19 Ship Street, Brighton - Full Planning

Erection of upper first floor rear extension to create one bedroom flat.

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE

Ward Affected: Regency

              Erection of upper first floor rear extension to create one bedroom flat.

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

(2)          The Planning Manager, Major Applications, Paul Vidler, gave a presentation detailing the scheme by reference to drawings and photographs showing the site as existing and the proposed scheme. It was noted that the application related to a double fronted 1970’s building built over four floors (including basement) to the western side of Ship Street. The building comprised a hairdressers to ground floor with associated studio space at lower ground floor level. The first floor was in residential use with the second floor in office use. The rear section of the building, set out over two floors, was solely in residential use other than the roof terrace above the flat roof which was associated with the existing second floor office space.

(3)          The Old Town Conservation Area in which the application site sat was characterised as an area of very tight knit urban grain in a largely informal street pattern with buildings of generally small scale but with some larger and later 19th century or early 20th century buildings in the main streets. It is also a very mixed use area with mainly commercial uses at street level and mixed uses above. Many of the buildings in the close vicinity are Grade II Listed, including numbers 15 and 16 immediately adjacent, numbers 14, 14A and 15 to the south, number 22 to the north and numbers 58, 59, 62, 63 and 64 on the opposite side of the road. To the west of the site is the Grade II* Listed Hippodrome on a much larger scale with later extension visible from Ship Street. The main considerations in determining the application were the principle of the development, the impact on the character and appearance of the building, the Old Town Conservation Area and adjoining listed buildings, the impacts on the amenities of adjacent occupiers, the standard of accommodation to be provided, and sustainability and traffic issues.

(4)          It was considered that the proposal would detract from the appearance and character of the building and would fail to preserve the conservation area and would result in harm to the setting of the adjoining listed buildings. It would also result in harm to the residential amenity of neighbouring occupiers and would fail to provide an acceptable standard of accommodation for future occupiers and refusal was therefore recommended.

Public Speakers

(5)          Mr Parsons spoke on behalf of the applicants in support of their application. He stated that the scheme had been designed in order to respect the neighbouring properties to the rear, the proposed form of development was sympathetic to that and would not increase or exacerbate the level of mutual overlooking which already existed.

              Debate and Decision Making Process

(6)          Councillor Mac Cafferty stated that having listened carefully to what had been said by the applicant’s agent and having viewed photographs of the site which had been submitted he did not agree that there would be a significant impact on the existing properties to the rear, given that mutual overlooking already existed, he did not therefore support the officer recommendation.

(7)          A vote was taken and the 11 Members present during consideration of the application and when the vote was taken voted 8 to 2 with 1 abstention that planning permission be refused.

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

              Note: Having declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the above application Councillor Morris left the meeting and took no part in its consideration or the debate, decision making process or voting thereon.