Agenda item - BH2017/00042 - 2 & 2A Stafford Road, Brighton - Full Planning

Demolition of garages and erection of 1no one bedroom dwelling, alterations to existing flats including alterations to fenestration, installation of front rooflights and rear dormers and associated works.

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Ward Affected: Preston Park

Demolition of garages and erection of 1no one bedroom dwelling, alterations to existing flats including alterations to fenestration, installation of front rooflights and rear dormers and associated works.

Officer Presentation

1)               The Principal Planning Officer introduced the application and gave a presentation with reference to plans, photographs and elevational drawings and explained that the site was currently a garage building adjoining a terrace building that was converted into two flats. The proposal was to demolish the garage and construct a three storey, one bedroom dwelling.

2)               It was explained that the bedroom would be on the first floor and the living accommodation would be situated on the third floor. The standard of accommodation was deemed acceptable and there would be no direct impact on the neighbouring properties.

3)               The design of the proposed dwelling was modern with zinc material and it was felt the area could accommodate a different design. There was a proposed turret on the third storey and the Officer’s deemed that this was acceptable and in keeping with the neighbouring properties.

Public Speaker(s) and Questions

4)               Mr Major spoke in objection to the application in his capacity as a local resident. He stated that it was not a conservation area; however, the site was in the centre of Prestonville neighbourhood and used to be a garden. Proposed development for the area needed to be of a sensitive design and be in keeping with the neighbouring properties. It was a corner plot that faced both Stafford Road and Buxton Road and would overlook the neighbouring properties. The windows on the ground and first floor level were full length and would not relate to the properties in the area, which had been stated by the agent. It was also noted that the turret was not in keeping with the area as they style was different to the neighbouring properties. Comments had been raised by local residents that the turret would appear as a watch tower and affect Prestonville.

5)               Councillor Allen spoke in objection to the application in his capacity as a Local Councillor. He stated that the report recognised that the turret would be “highly prominent”; however, it would appear like a watch tower and dominant the area. The property would be the first thing one would see when approaching the area from Old Shoreham Road and it needed to be sensitively designed. The dormers at the rear of the elevation would overlook the properties on Buxton Road.

Debate and Decision Making Process

6)               Councillor Yates and Councillor C. Theobald both stated that they liked the design and it was an improvement on the current garage and junction. They noted that they would be supporting the Officer’s recommendation.

7)               Councillor Inkpin-Leissner agreed with Councillor Yates and noted that letters of support had been received and one of these had stated that the garages were not in keeping with the area. He noted that the design was in keeping with the street scene with a modern design.

8)               Councillor Hyde agreed with the Members and explained that it was a compromise between a modern design and reflecting the neighbouring properties to ensure it was in keeping with the street scene. 

9)               Councillor Miller noted that additional housing was needed for the city and that he would be supporting the Officer’s recommendation.

10)            Councillor Littman explained that developing the site for housing would be positive; however, he did not like the design for the area. He noted that he would not be supporting the Officer’s recommendation.

11)            The Chair then put the application to the vote, and the Officer recommendation that the application be granted was carried by 11 votes in support and 1 refusal.

44.12    RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation, and resolves to GRANT permission for the reasons set out in the report.