Agenda item - BH2017/04186, Land to Rear of 62-64 Preston Road, Brighton - Full Planning

Erection of a 5 no storey extension to rear of existing building incorporating for basement enlargement and alterations to provide 4no flats (C3) and bin store.

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE

Ward Affected: Preston Park

Erection of 5no storey extension to rear of existing building incorporating excavations for basement enlargement and alterations to provide 4no flats (C3) and bin store.

Officers Introduction

(1)          The Principal Planning Officer, Gareth Giles, introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to plans, elevational drawings, photographs and floor plans.

(2)          It was explained that the main considerations in determining this application related to the effect on the street scene as well as the impact on the host building, the residential amenity of the neighbouring residents, the residents within the proposed development and the well-being of the residents in the host buildings in the upper levels. Two similar developments had been considered recently by the Committee in April and November 2017 respectively, both of which had been refused. Whilst the principle of development was not rejected when both of these applications had been determined, there had been concerns regarding the appearance of the development and the impact on amenity of existing and future residents.

(3)       The key differences between the two recently refused schemes were highlighted and included, revisions to the fifth floor “pod” storey including installation of a larger window on the northern side and introduction of a zinc fascia with 200mm roof overhang, replacement of the balconies to the eastern elevation with Juliet Balconies and obscure glazing to the upper floor windows on the southern elevation. It was considered that the revisions to the ‘pod’ did not mitigate the overall harm caused by the mass and scale of the extension and which formed grounds for refusal on the previous proposals. The roof form, described as a 'pod' within the submission, appeared as an additional storey with a large expanse of flat roof, which failed to relate to the main dwelling and characteristics of the surrounding properties, which predominantly had traditional hipped roofs, and therefore jarred with the main dwelling. Whilst this design solution could sometimes be acceptable, it was considered that in this instance it would be a highly noticeable and incongruous feature of the extension which would be exacerbated by the use of the zinc cladding.

(4)       Given the proximity of the extension to the adjoining property No 60, coupled with its excessive height and bulk, the proposal was still considered to cause significant harm to the main rear windows and rear amenity area of that property. It was also considered that the proposed extension which would be sited approximately 1.7m from the shared boundary with the ground floor residential property within 60 Preston Road would have a significantly harmful impact on the ground floor units and the rear garden and, would be overbearing and oppressive to the residential occupiers of the ground floor, including the rear amenity space and would result in loss of light and outlooking. Notwithstanding the amendments made to the scheme it was considered that the proposed five storey extension, by reason of its excessive height, depth, roof form, detailing and materials represented an excessive addition that was bulky, unduly dominant and represented an overdevelopment of the site which failed to respond to the surrounding context and did not relate to the main building and adjoining development and for those reasons refusal was recommended.

            Public Speakers

(5)          Mr Sheridan spoke on behalf of neighbouring residents setting out their objections to the scheme. He stated that his dwelling to the rear and those of his immediate neighbours would be detrimentally impacted by the proposed development which would completely dominate and overshadow their homes and result in significant harm and loss of amenity, also that the on-street parking issues which would arise from the scheme also needed to be addressed. He therefore urged the Committee to refuse this application.

(6)          Mr Little, the applicant, spoke in support of his scheme. This was the third time that he had stood before the Committee and he considered that he had done all that he could to address the previous grounds for refusal whilst providing much needed housing, the YMCA had already expressed in interest in the proposed development. He considered that this scheme would not result in a significantly different height and bulk to other development nearby and that it was now acceptable. The on-street parking situation would not in his view be adversely impacted in consequence of the proposed development and it should be noted that objectors had actually sought to have the existing disabled on-street parking space removed.

            Questions for Officers

(7)          Councillor C Theobald sought clarification of arrangements for storage and removal of waste from the site.

(8)          Councillor Morris enquired regarding proposed removal of an adjacent disabled parking space and Councillor Gilbey enquired whether there was information available regarding any expression of interest shown by the YMCA in respect of the site. It was explained that the potential end user was not germane to consideration of the planning application in this instance and that it would be unreasonable to require any specified occupier.

(9)          Councillor Mac Cafferty enquired whether a specialist technical survey had been undertaken, given that it was considered that significant harm due to loss of light and aspect would result from the scheme. Councillor Hyde considered that given the degree of overlooking/loss of light which was envisaged that should have been required. The Principal Planning Officer responded that this had not been required as the application represented overdevelopment in officers view on the grounds of its massing and bulk alone, notwithstanding amendments which had been made to the earlier schemes.

(10)       Councillor Mac Cafferty noted the points made but considered that it would have been beneficial if the report relating to loss of light had been scientifically evidence based.

(11)       Councillor Littman enquired whether there had been further discussions between the applicant and officers following the earlier refusals for instance in relation to removal of the balconies and the provision of obscure glazing.

(12)       Councillor Daniel sought further information regarding the roof slope of the proposed form of development and details of the roof slope of nearby development. Photographs indicating this were displayed and it was explained that given the location of the site the proposed changes would be very prominent when viewed within the neighbouring street scene.

(13)       Councillor Bennett asked for details of those dwellings to which it was considered there would be the greatest detriment and whether those properties had been sub-divided into flats and it was confirmed that they were.

(14)       The Chair, Councillor Cattell also sought confirmation regarding potential overlooking from side and rear windows currently and anticipated as a result of the proposed development.

            Debate and Decision Making Process

(15)       Councillor Miller stated that in his view the previous reasons for refusal had not been overcome and the application should be refused.

(16)       Councillor Gilbey considered that overall the development was still too bulky and Councillor C Theobald also concurred in that view. In her view the roof in particular was very bulky and she also had concerns regarding the loss of light to neighbouring properties.

(17)       Councillor Littman stated that for him whilst recognising that the site would benefit from further development he considered that the current proposal remained overly dominant, consequentially he supported the officer recommendation. Councillor Morris was in agreement with that view.

(18)       Councillor Daniel considered that the frontage of the building would not be dominant and that the rear extension would be subservient to the host building and considered that the proposed form of development was therefore acceptable.

(19)       Councillor Moonan stated that she wanted to support development of the site but she remained of the view that the upper storey remained too bulky and in consequence she was unable to support the proposed form of development. Councillor Hyde concurred.

(20)       Councillor Cattell, the Chair, stated whilst supporting the principle of development of the site she considered that the form of development remained un-neighbourly and that the proposed scheme was disappointing in that it was not subservient to the main building and was therefore not acceptable.

(21)       A vote was taken and on a vote of 7 to 4 with 1 abstention planning permission was refused.

109.1    RESOLVED - That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report and resolves to REFUSE planning permission for the reasons set out in the report.