Agenda item - BH2018/02536-25 Preston Park Avenue, Brighton- Full Planning

Demolition of existing garage and side extension, and erection of three storey rear extension. Conversion of existing house into 6no flats (C3).  Erection of 2no two storey dwellinghouses (C3) in rear garden with associated landscaping.

RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

Ward Affected: Preston Park

              Demolition of existing garage and side extension, and erection of three storey rear extension. Conversion of existing house into 6no flats (C3). Erection of 2no two storey dwelling houses (C3) in rear garden with associated landscaping.

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

            Officer Presentation

(2)       The Principal Planning Officer, Stewart Glassar, introduced the application and gave a detailed presentation by reference to site plans, photographs and elevational drawings detailing the proposed scheme. It was noted that the application related to a three storey detached property located to the east of Preston Park Avenue which was currently occupied as a single dwelling which had been subject to a number of ad hoc alterations including dormer windows, single storey rear extensions and projecting gables. Several sections of the property were currently in a poor state of repair. The existing building was of traditional design with ornate detailing the front elevation of which remained largely intact and was set within a generous plot. Attention was drawn to the fact that an amended description of the site and additional proposed conditions and informatives were set out in the Late/Additional Representations List.

(3)       It was noted that the main considerations in determining the application related to the principle of development on site, the affordable housing provision, the visual impact of the proposal on the site and surrounding conservation area, the impact on neighbouring amenity, the standard of accommodation provided for future occupiers, sustainability and sustainable transport impacts. Whilst the scale of development proposed was significantly intensified in comparison to the existing use and the development would be noticeable by immediate neighbours, this was considered acceptable. Overall development would provide a net gain of 7 residential units including provision of a policy compliant affordable housing contribution. Furthermore the proposal would ensure the retention of much of the character of the existing building whilst upgrading and refurbishing the interior. Approval was therefore recommended.

            Public Speakers

(4)          Mr Mathews spoke in his capacity as a neighbouring objector setting out his objections in respect of the proposed scheme. The proposed scheme would have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the neighbouring residential blocks, would result in overshadowing and represented overdevelopment of the site and would have a detrimental impact on the conservation area; the existing “green lung” would be lost and any wildlife on site would be compromised. It would also result in additional noise, traffic and parking. It was considered that some of the information provided was misleading/incorrect and that sufficient account had not taken of the topography of the site.

(5)          Mr Evans, the applicant spoke in support of his application. He explained that the property had been in his family for more than 100 years and notwithstanding that its character and features had been retained the main building was in desperate need of renovation. The proposed scheme had sought to address any objections raised and to utilise the existing plot without detriment to neighbouring development by maintaining a good degree of separation.

            Questions of Officers

(6)          Mr Gowans was in attendance representing CAG and requested that he be permitted to display photographs taken on their behalf showing views into the site from the street. The Chair, sought the views of Committee and it was agreed for these photographs to be shown.

(7)          Councillor Littman referred to photographs displayed by CAG seeking confirmation regarding where they had been taken from. It was explained that they had been taken from the public footway outside the site. He considered that whilst the new development might be visible obliquely in long views, that was the case in respect of a number of other sites in the vicinity where there had been back land development.

(8)          Councillor O’Quinn explained that whilst attending the site visit the previous afternoon she had observed that the main building had stained glass windows and a feature balcony asking whether it was proposed that these would be retained. It was confirmed that they would.

(9)          Councillor Miller referred to the parking to be provided in front of the existing building seeking confirmation as to whether it would be provided for use by occupiers of the flats in the existing house following conversion or the dwelling houses to be provided to the rear. It was explained that this had yet to be determined but that it was envisaged it would be provided for occupants of the flats.

(10)       Councillor C Theobald asked to see elevational drawings showing the roof heights of the proposed properties to the rear, also sectional drawings showing the changes in level across the site and its typography in relation to neighbouring sites.

(11)       Councillor Hyde asked regarding measures to protect the flint wall separating the site from its neighbours. It was confirmed that the wall referred to was in fact bungaroosh in its construction and would be retained.

(12)       Councillor Miller referred to fact that chalk waste would be generated in consequence as a result of the excavation works on site considering that if permission was granted arrangements needed to be put into place in relation to removal of any waste.

(13)       Councillor Littman sought clarification regarding the elements of the existing wall to be retained at the front of the site following removal of the existing garage and distances between the site and the neighbouring development at Whistler Court and other neighbouring development.

            Debate and Decision Making Process

(14)       Councillor C Theobald stated that she welcomed the retention of the existing house and considered that the proposed development to the rear albeit a back-land development was appropriate in view of the size of the plot.

(15)       Mr Gowans, stated that CAG which he represented remained of the view that that the application should be refused. Demolition of the gable extensions and brick piers to the front boundary would result in the loss of original features and that the new houses to be sited to the rear of the plot would be visible from the public realm, were not of a sympathetic design, would obscure the view of the trees which were important to the setting of the main house and would be detrimental to the character of the conservation area.

(16)       Councillor O’ Quinn stated that she had welcomed the opportunity to visit the site, having done so she was of the view that the works proposed were in keeping with the host building, she particularly welcomed the fact that its key features and character were to be retained. The gardens to the rear of the existing building were substantial and could support the proposed development without being detrimental to the host building or the neighbouring street scene.

(17)       Councillor Miller noted the comments made by CAG considering that the proposed back-land development which would enable the renovation of the building fronting the site to be retained and renovated was acceptable in this instance. A number of other plots nearby had back land developments, or as in case of the neighbouring Whistler Court had been constructed on the site of an earlier building. Garage blocks at that site and others were clearly visible from the footway and he did not consider therefore that the proposed dwellings to the rear would be more intrusive or damage the setting of the conservation area.

(18)       Councillor Littman considered that removal of the gable extension was regrettable. However, in his view although the scheme was not perfect on balance he considered that it was acceptable and would be supporting the officer recommendation.

(19)       Councillor Hyde concurred with much that had been said stating that the Site Visit had been valuable as it had provided the opportunity to appreciate how large the site actually was. The development to the rear would enable the existing house and many of its features to be retained, those dwellings were of an acceptable design and scale in view of the size of the plot and she considered the proposals to be acceptable. She disagreed that harm would result to the conservation area in view of these buildings from the public highway.

(20)       Councillor Gilbey stated that she had considered that it had been a privilege to visit a building with so many of its original features intact and which were to be retained. In this instance she considered that the form of back-land development proposed was acceptable and she supported the proposed scheme.

(21)       The Chair, Councillor Cattell stated that she agreed that in this instance the proposed enabling development would be acceptable and of a good design at a suitable distance from the retained building and with a sizeable garden being retained. Renovation and retention of features associated with the existing house were also welcome.

(22)       A vote was taken and the 11 Members who were present when the vote was taken voted on a vote of 10 with 1 abstention that minded to grant planning approval be given.

101.2  RESOLVED - That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report and resolves that it is Minded to Grant planning permission subject to a s106 Planning Obligation and the Conditions and Informatives set out in the report and below, SAVE THAT should the s106 Planning Obligation not be completed on or before the 15^th of May 2019 the Head of Planning is hereby authorised to refuse planning permission for the reasons set out in section 11 of the report:

Amend description as on Late List.

Amend and additional conditions as on Late List.

  Additional Condition:

              An additional condition to be included as agreed by Committee requiring a Site Waste Management Plan.

              Additional Informative:

              Condition 5 requiring the approval of samples of external materials will be determined by the Head of Planning following consultation with Members attending the Planning Committee Chair’s meeting.