Agenda item - BH2016/00752 - 101 Roundhill Crescent, Brighton - Full Planning

Erection of 1no three bedroom dwelling (C3) incorporating alterations to boundary wall and external alterations to existing building including repair works, alterations to fenestration and associated works.

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Ward Affected – St Peter’s & North Laine

Erection of 1no three bedroom dwelling (C3) incorporating alterations to boundary wall and external alterations to existing building including repair works, alterations to fenestration and associated works.

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

Officer Presentation

2)               The Principle Planning Officer, Gareth Giles, introduced the application and gave a presentation in respect of application BH2016/00752 for full planning permission and application BH2016/00753 for listed building consent by reference to plans, photographs and elevational drawings. The boundary wall that joined to the side of the building was listed and was in front of the proposed dwelling; therefore, it would have to be partially removed for the installation of a new gate to gain access.

3)               The proposed three bedroom dwelling would be 0.6 metres lower than the neighbouring property and would protrude by 0.75 metres at the rear. The first floor would have two bedrooms and a bathroom and the second floor in the roof would have the third bedroom. The application included improvements and repair works to 101 Roundhill Crescent.  Both applications were recommended for approval as set out in the reports.

Public Speaker(s) and Questions

4)               Ms Light spoke in her capacity as a local resident and noted that the application had previously been brought to Committee and refused due to overcrowding in the area and the loss of amenity for local residents. She explained that there was only one change to the application and this was the material; however, this would not solve the previous concerns. She stated that she would lose light into her living room and the morning light to the terrace area. The property would overlook her kitchen, bedroom and other neighbouring properties. She concluded by stating that the building did not uphold good design, was situated in a conservation area and would affect the quality of life for neighbours.

5)               Councillor Greenbaum spoke in her capacity as a Ward Councillor and expressed her support for the residents who had objected. She noted that she had received a lot of communication regarding this application; this had mainly expressed concern for the loss of light to neighbouring properties and overcrowding in the area. The proposed property would have a significant impact on the character of the area for visitors, as well as local residents, and the gap between the houses would be lost causing the street scene to feel dense.

6)               Ms Jamieson-Franks spoke in her capacity as the applicant and explained that the previous application that came to Planning Committee in November 2015 had the support of the Committee Members; however, they had suggestions regarding the materials which had been amended. She explained that during the site visit prior to the November 2015 Committee Members felt having the proposed property in the gap of the street scene would not have a negative impact as it would restrict the view of the multi-storey Sainsbury’s building. The position and measurements, apart from the height of the building, had not changed since the previous planning application and all the previous objections had been addressed and agreed. She noted that if the proposed property was agreed she would be able to restore the historic features on the adjoining property that the Heritage Officers had suggested and the property would then be worthy of a blue plaque.

Questions for Officers

7)               In response to Councillor Mac Cafferty the Planning Manager stated that there were ecology comments in the report, and there had been no indication received that identified protected toads species being present on the site.

8)               The Case Officer clarified to Councillor C. Theobald that the distance between the rear door of the proposed dwelling and 101 Roundhill Crescent would be 13.1 metres.

9)               In response to Councillor Moonan it was confirmed that the Committee could agree to add a condition to ensure the listed wall was renovated.

Debate and Decision Making Process

10)            Councillor Hyde stated that she found the site visit very useful and noted concern that the application was recommended to grant. She explained that, if agreed, the property would have a significant impact on the neighbouring properties due to the loss of daylight and it would be overbearing in the Roundhill Conservation Area. She noted that there were beautiful, historic views of the downs and the racecourse that had not been shown in the Officers presentation and these would be a loss to the residents. She added that she was unhappy that the report linked the new dwelling to the restoration of 101 Roundhill Crescent as it had to be maintained to a decent standard as it was a listed building. She noted that she would not be supporting the Officer recommendation.

11)            Councillor Gilbey agreed with Councillor Hyde and explained that similar applications had been refused due to the loss of a gap in the street scene as it would affect the residents. She noted her view that the applicant was contrary to the aims of the recently adopted City Plan.

12)            Councillors Hyde and Gilbey highlighted their view that the proposal was contrary to several policies, by way of response Officers noted that some of the policies mentioned were no longer relevant and had been superseded by policies in the City Plan, published earlier in the year.

13)            Councillor Moonan noted that it was useful to have a site visit. She explained that she disagreed with Councillors Hyde and Gilbey and believed that the property would screen the multi-storey Sainsbury’s and would maintain the view of the downs. She noted that the neighbouring properties would still receive daylight and would therefore be agreeing with the Officer recommendations.

14)            Councillor Littman praised the applicant for the work and amendments they had completed; however, he agreed with Councillor Hyde and Gilbey. He explained that he knew the area well and believed the damage to the amenity of the area would outweigh the advantages of the scheme.

15)            Councillor Miller agreed with Councillor Moonan; he noted that the view of the multi-storey Sainsbury’s was prominent and the proposed property would block this and frame the view of the Downs. He noted that he was undecided if he would be supporting the Officer recommendations.

16)            Councillor C. Theobald noted that it was important to retain the gap on the street scene for residents and essential to note the 30 letters of objection that had been received. She stated that she would not be supporting the Officer recommendations.

17)            Councillor Gilbey noted that there was not any public green space in the area; therefore, the views would provide relief for residents and a break in the urban form.

18)            The Conservation Advisory Group representative, Mr Gowans, noted that the Group did not have an objection to the application.

19)            Councillor Mac Cafferty stated that it was a difficult decision as a lot of residents would be affected. He noted that he disagreed with the objections and thought the proposed building was attractive.

20)            The Chair agreed with Councillor Mac Cafferty and noted that the dwelling was sensitively designed for the area and explained that there would still be a gap between the proposed building and the neighbouring properties. She stated that if the internal design was altered, it could potentially resolve the problems of overlooking into neighbouring properties.

21)            Councillor Hyde proposed an alternative to the Officer recommendation to grant the application on the grounds that the proposal would have an overbearing and unneighbourly impact on neighbours, would have an impact on the Listed Building and Conservation Area, would result in the loss of the gap and would represent a cramped form of development and that the final form of wording for the reason for refusal, based on those reasons, should be delegated to the Planning Manager in consultation with Councillor Hyde and the seconder. Councillor Hyde’s alternative recommendation was seconded by Councillor Theobald.

22)            A recorded vote was taken on the proposed alternative recommendation by the 10 Members present. This was carried with Councillors Allen, Gilbey, C. Theobald, Mac Cafferty, Hyde and Littman in support, Councillors Moonan, Morris and Cattell against and Councillor Miller abstaining.

56.4       RESOLVED – That the Committee had taken into consideration the recommendation set out in section 1 of the report but resolves to REFUSE planning permission for the reasons outlined by Councillor Hyde set out in paragraph 21 above.

Note: Councillors Bennett and Russell Moyle were not present for the consideration and vote on the application.