Agenda item - BH2018/02052,9 Hampton Street, Brighton - Full Planning

Erection of an additional storey at second floor level & creation of new single dwelling house (C3) with access from Spring Street and revised fenestration.

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Ward Affected: Regency

              Erection of an additional storey at second floor level and creation of new single dwelling house (C3) with access from Spring Street and revised fenestration.

              Officer Presentation

(1)          The Principal Planning Officer, Stewart Glassar, introduced the application and gave a detailed presentation by reference to site plans, photographs, floor plans and elevational drawings detailing the scheme. It was explained that the application related to a two-storey building located on the corner of Hampton Street and Spring Street. Planning permission was being sought to erect an additional storey on the northernmost part of the building and to subdivide the building into two dwellings, with revised fenestration. Drawings were also displayed indicating the differences between the previous scheme and that currently proposed.

(2)          It was noted that the main considerations in determining the application related to the principle of the subdivision of the existing dwelling, the design and appearance of the proposal in the context of the Montpelier and Clifton Hill Conservation Area and the impact of the proposal on neighbouring amenity; also, the standard of accommodation that the proposed units would provide and sustainable transport are also material considerations. The site was located in a busy residential area and so the creation of an additional residential unit in the building had been considered in respect of an earlier application which had not been considered likely to have a significant detrimental effect on neighbouring amenity due to increased noise disturbance. The current proposal was also considered to be acceptable in that regard and it was not considered that it would result in a significant increase in overlooking or overshadowing to neighbouring properties. No private amenity space was proposed, however the previous application for subdivision into two residential units had not done so either and both in respect of that earlier application and this latest proposal that was considered acceptable.

(3)          The amended scheme which had been put forward would provide dwellings which would exceed the minimum standards set out in the Government’s National Technical Space Standards as did the bedrooms which would benefit from natural light and outlook. Overall, the proposed dwellings were considered to provide a satisfactory standard of accommodation and approval was therefore recommended.

            Debate and Decision Making Process

(4)          Mr Gowans referred to the objections to the scheme put forward by CAG stating that they remained of the view that the application should be refused as the form of development  proposed would  not enhance  the existing building or that part of the conservation area in which it was situated. The building was a rare example of an early Victorian terraced dwelling far earlier in date than its neighbours which were a later pastiche. The proposed extensions would also have a detrimental impact on views from Western Road to the spire of St Mary Magdalen Church which would be marred by the proposed form of development. The church represented an important local landmark and existing views of it would be reduced.

(5)          In response the Principal Planning Officer explained that whilst it was recognised that there would be an impact on St Mary Magdalen Church it was not considered this would be significant or such to warrant refusal.

(6)          Councillor C Theobald stated that she considered that the proposed development would be sympathetic to the existing street scene.

(7)          Councillor Cattell, the Chair, considered that the current proposals represented significant improvements to the previous scheme commending the work which had been undertaken by the Heritage Team in seeking modifications in order to ensure that the development respected the scale, roofline and streetscape of the neighbouring conservation area.

(8)          A vote was taken and the 5 Members who were present when the vote was taken voted on a vote of 4 with 1 abstention that planning permission be granted.

101.4    RESOLVED - That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report and resolves to GRANT planning permission subject to the Conditions and Informatives also set out in the report.

              Note: Councillors Bennett, Gilbey, Inkpin-Leissner, Mac Cafferty, Morgan, O’Quinn and Robins were not present at the meeting during consideration and determination of the above application.