Agenda item - BH2016/00862 - 28 and land rear of including 28B, 28C and 28D Crescent Road, Brighton - Full Planning

Part demolition and conversion of existing commercial buildings and erection of two new buildings to provide 3no two bedroom houses and 1no three bedroom house (C3) with associated landscaping.

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Ward Affected – St Peter’s & North Laine

Part demolition and conversion of existing commercial buildings and erection of two new buildings to provide 3no two bedroom houses and 1no three bedroom house (C3) with associated landscaping.

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

Officer Presentation

2)               The Principal Planning Officer, Maria Seale introduced the application and gave a presentation with reference to plans, photographs and elevational drawings. The site was located in the Roundhill Conservation Area and had had various historic uses; both residential and commercial. The site had been marketed over a 15 month period; however it was unsuccessful in attracting a buyer for its current use. The application included part demolition, conversion and new build.

3)               The proposed dwellings would be set back from the existing property and had been designed to prevent overlooking and the high level windows would have obscured glazing. The view for local residents would not change significantly and the dimensions of the dwellings would be largely similar. There were no concerns from the Heritage Team and the Planning Department believed the proposed dwellings were making the most out of the space. The application was recommended for approval for the reasons set out in the report.

Public Speaker(s) and Questions

4)               Chris Morley spoke in his capacity as a local resident on behalf of the residents in the Roundhill Conservation Area. He explained that the applicant had made slight amendments to the application; however, the design of the proposed dwellings had not been changed significantly. The local residents would suffer from overlooking and the Conservation Area policy stated that proposed developments should enhance or promote the area; however, he stated that these buildings would do neither. He noted to the Committee that the existing commercial buildings provided employment opportunities and in 2015 there was a lack of commercial sites; therefore, this should be utilised.

5)               Councillor Greenbaum spoke in her capacity as a Ward Councillor and explained that she believed that the proposed buildings were well-designed and interesting; however, it would be overbearing for the local residents. She explained that it would increase noise disturbance in the area. She noted that it is important for residents to have open spaces and views from their windows; therefore, she asked the Committee to refuse the application as it would overdevelop the site.

6)               Mr Frisby spoke in his capacity as the agent, and explained that the existing dwellings had recently been used as office space and light industrial workshops. He noted that there were no restrictions on hours for the use, and the buildings had been empty for a significant amount of time. The application was finalised after consultation with the local residents and the Council; significant amendments had been made during this process. The proposed window locations had been altered to prevent overlooking and a part of the existing dwelling would be demolished to create two smaller buildings. He explained to the Committee that the proposed double gates would be a further benefit as it would reinstate the historical features.

7)               In response to Councillor Hyde Mr Frisby clarified that the gates would be more contextually appropriate and the modern doors would also be replaced to replicate the historic features.

8)               In response to Councillor Morris it was confirmed that the new doors would be pedestrian access only; however, in an emergency, they would be able to open for emergency vehicles.

9)               In response to Councillor Gilbey it was confirmed that the access would be wheelchair accessible.

Questions for Officers

10)            In response to Councillor Moonan the Planning Officer confirmed that the bins were shown on the plans and screening was conditioned; however, the Committee could agree to add further conditions specifying the material and height of the screening. Councillor Moonan noted that the trees and shrubbery would enhance the view of the properties and would be beneficial to the area.

11)            The Planning Officer explained to Councillor Mac Cafferty that the applicant had expressed a willingness to install a sprinkler system.

12)            In response to Councillor Littman the Planning Officer confirmed that the building had been empty for some time.

Debate and Decision Making Process

13)            A vote was taken by the 9 Members present and the Officer recommendation that the Committee be minded to grant planning permission was carried with 7 votes in support, 1 against and 1 abstention.

56.9       RESOLVED – That the Committee resolves to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives set out in section 1 of the report.

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