Agenda item - BH2017/02137 - Land To Rear Of 62-64 Preston Road, Brighton - Full Planning

Excavation and erection of four storey building comprising 4no residential units (C3) with associated alterations.

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE

Ward Affected: Preston Park

Excavation and erection of four storey building comprising 4no residential units (C3) with associated alterations.

Officer Presentation

1)               The Principal Planning Officer introduced the application and gave a presentation with reference to plans, photographs and elevational drawings and noted that there were a number of amendments to the report and these were noted in the Late Representations List. There was an application for the site that was previously refused at the Planning Committee on 12 April 2017.

2)               The Officer’s recommendation was for refusal due to the design and impact and overlooking of the neighbouring properties. The site was located between 10 Ditchling Rise and 62-64 Preston Road and there was currently a 1.5-2 storey outrigger on site. The development would fill the existing rear courtyard area. The rear facing windows on the host dwelling would be relocated and there were not windows on 10 Ditching Rise on the lower elevation. The windows on the south elevation would be a mix of obscure and non-obscured glazing.

3)               The previous application had been refused due to the effect on the amenity of the existing neighbouring properties and the future occupiers of the development and the overlooking from the two existing windows on the outrigger. The two windows of concern had been relocated as part of the current application.

4)               One below ground level maisonette with a rear garden and three one- bedroom flats on the first, second and third floor were proposed . The third floor proposed flat was 8m² below the national space standards for a one bedroom unit.

Public Speaker(s) and Questions

5)               Mr Little spoke in support of the application in his capacity as the applicant and explained that he had taken on board all the feedback from the previous Planning Committee when the application was refused. He had redesigned the application to improve the scheme and had moved the proposed windows of concern that overlooked the neighbouring properties and increased their size to improve the light into the unit. The south facing windows would be obscurely glazed. He explained that the roof had been set back and taken a more modern approach to the scheme to overcome the previously raised issues. The top floor unit was smaller but he explained that 42m² was still a desirable size and the Planning Committee had agreed, at the current meeting, two applications where units were below the national space standards. Councillor Miller had noted at the previous Committee that there was not an issue developing on the current site and Mr Little explained that it was currently derelict and the development would provide an additional four dwellings for the city.

6)               In response to Councillor Robins the applicant explained that since the previously refused application the bedroom wall of the first floor unit had been knocked through to create a larger room and the windows of concern had been relocated.

Questions for Officers

7)               In response to Councillor Daniel the Principal Planning Officer explained that the officer’s view was that the development was too large for an extension of a building and it would exceed the eaves line. The neighbouring properties were three storeys; however, the proposal was three storeys with a fourth storey accommodation in the roof.

8)               In response to Councillor Bennett it was explained that the national space standard for a studio was 38m². The third storey was a one bedroom unit and it was too small for two occupants; however, if the wall between the bedroom and living space was removed then it would meet the national space standards for a studio flat.

9)               In response to Councillor Miller it was explained that if the application was granted permission then the Councillors could agree to obscurely glaze the windows that overlooked Preston Road if this was felt necessary.

10)            In response to Councillor Hyde it was explained that the principle concern for the officers was the overlooking from the south elevation as the development would be on the boundary of the neighbouring property and the gardens would be overlooked due to the close proximity. It was noted that these concerns could be mitigated by obscured glazing; however, it would not be recommended due to the height and depth of the proposed development.

Debate and Decision Making Process

11)            Councillor Miller explained that he would not be supporting the Officer’s recommendation as the concerns raised at the previous Committee had been addressed and the overlooking could be mitigated by obscure glazing. He noted that the development would provide four dwellings for the city and if the development was reduced in size then this would not be in keeping with the street scene. He explained that it was a good use of the site and the neighbouring properties were currently overlooked.

12)            Councillor Bennett explained that she agreed with Councillor Miller and the application had been improved since the previously refused application.

13)            The Chair then put the application to the vote, and the Officer recommendation that the application be refused was carried on the Chair’s casting voteby 5 votes in support, 5 in refusal and 1 abstention.

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