Agenda item - BH2019/02306 - 40 Dyke Road Avenue, Brighton- Full Planning
navigation and tools
You are here - Home : Council and Democracy : Councillors and Committees : Agenda item
BH2019/02306 - 40 Dyke Road Avenue, Brighton- Full Planning
Demolition of existing single dwelling (C3) with associated garage and erection of three storey five-bedroom single dwelling (C3)
(1) The Principal Planning Officer, Liz Arnold, introduced the application and gave a detailed presentation by reference to photographs, plans, floor plans and elevational drawings setting out the proposed scheme. The representations received from the CAG set out in the Late/Additional Representations List were also referred to. The application site related to a detached dwelling on the northern side of Dyke Road Avenue, located within the Tongdean Conservation Area well set back from the road and bounded by a brick wall with piers to the street elevation. A number of trees on site were to be removed, although two important elms on the frontage were to be retained.
(2) It was noted that the main considerations in determining this application related to impact of the development on the character and appearance of the existing site, street-scene and the surrounding conservation area, impact on neighbouring amenity, the trees on site, transport network and sustainability issues. When considering whether to grant planning permission for development in a conservation area the council had a statutory duty to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the area. The Heritage Team had indicated that the proposal would fail to meet the requirements of policies HE6 and HE8 of the Local Plan and would fail to preserve the appearance and character of the conservation area and would therefore cause demonstrable harm to the area with no benefits which might be weighed against that harm. The existing house was of significance and provided a positive contribution to the conservation areas as a whole being distinctive and reflective of the period when it had been built. For the reasons set out in the report the application was therefore recommended for refusal.
(3) Mr Lap Chan accompanied the applicants and spoke on their behalf in support of their application. He explained that the approval was sought to demolish the existing dwelling on site in order to provide a home which was fit for modern family living.
Questions of Officers
(4) Councillor Yates referred to the plot which was referred to as 40A enquiring whether that address formed part of the application site i,e., whether the proposal was to erect one dwelling house on a space that had previously been occupied by two. It was confirmed that, that was not the case.
(5) Mr Amerena CAG asked whether the Planning Department were aware that demolition works had recently been undertaken to the front wall of the property. It was confirmed that the Heritage Team were aware that parts of the boundary wall had been removed recently as they had been deemed structurally unsound and dangerous. A separate planning application would be required in order to regularise those works and did not form part of the current application.
(6) Councillor Miller sought further information regarding the differences in site coverage between the existing and proposed schemes and photographs of the existing dwelling in relation to its immediate neighbours and in the context of the Tongdean Conservation Area.
Debate and Decision Making Process
(7) Councillor Miller stated that given that the dwelling could not be viewed from immediate vicinity he needed to give careful consideration to its acceptability in view of its location in the conservation area as there did seem to be a diversity of architectural styles as a result of earlier conversions.
(8) Councillor Yates stated that he was in agreement with the officer recommendation. He was of the view that no case had been made for loss of the existing building, and was in agreement that the proposed scheme would be detrimental to the conservation area as it would further dilute and detract from its character.
(9) Councillor Littman agreed, considering that it was important to protect and enhance the character of the conservation area.
(10) Councillor Shanks agreed, considering that the existing building should be protected and retained.
(11) Councillor Fishleigh stated that she could not see that any positive benefits would result from the proposed scheme and therefore supported the officer recommendation that the application be refused.
(12) Councillor Druitt stated that he was not convinced by the case put forward to remove the existing building and considered that that the existing dwelling was capable of the adaptations necessary whilst retaining its appearance and character.
(13) Councillor Bagaeen stated that he considered the proposed scheme to be acceptable in that it would provide a sustainable and efficient modern family home. There were a number of differing building styles in the vicinity and the development proposed would not be visible due to the level of screening and the distance that it would be set back from the highway.
(14) A vote was taken and on a vote of 7 to 1 with 1 abstention the Committee voted that planning permission be refused.
75.2 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.
- Header BH2019 02306 40 Dyke Road Avenue, item 75B PDF 4 KB
- Plan BH2019 02306 40 Dyke Road Avenue, item 75B PDF 284 KB
- Report BH2019 02306 40 Dyke Road Avenue, item 75B PDF 167 KB