Agenda item - BH2019/02290 - 218 Dyke Road, Brighton - Full Planning
navigation and tools
You are here - Home : Council and Democracy : Councillors and Committees : Agenda item
BH2019/02290 - 218 Dyke Road, Brighton - Full Planning
Conversion of existing 2no flats at first floor level to create 2no two-bedroom flats & 1no one bedroom flat incorporating part two storey & part first floor rear extensions with gable roofs, front & rear terraces and associated alterations.
(1) The Chair, Councillor Hill, explained that a joint presentation would be given detailing both applications, with public speakers setting out their views and concerns in respect of both. Following the debate both applications would be voted on separately.
(2) The Principal Planning Officer, Liz Arnold, introduced the scheme and gave a detailed presentation by reference to plans, elevational drawings, aerial views and photographs showing the site from various properties to give the context of the neighbouring street scene. Comments received from the CAG in respect of both applications were as set out in the Late/Additional Representations List. that the building This property is a grade II listed building purpose built and historically used as a Public House, the ground floor of the building had recently been used solely for retail purposes (through Permitted Development Rights) but in June 2019 planning permission was granted to change part of ground floor (the western part) back to a public house. With regards to the upper floor, in 2018 an Enforcement Investigation had confirmed that the upper floor of the property had been in lawful use as two residential units, separate to the ground floor commercial uses. Since December 2018, the ground floor and garden of 218 Dyke Road, The Dyke Pub had been listed as an Asset of Community Value, this was capable of being a material planning consideration although it should be noted that the listing gave no right of access to the land. The only right which followed from a listing was the right of a community interest groups to bid to purchase the listed land should the owner intend to sell.
(3) The main considerations in determining this application related to the principle of development, the impacts of the proposal on the historic character and appearance of the Grade II* Listed Building, related street-scene and wider area, design and appearance, standard of accommodation, impact on amenity, highways and sustainability. As a result of pre-application discussions a conservatory and terrace originally in place for Flat 3 had been removed in response to concerns about the potential for noise disturbance and loss of outlook. A second storey/attic element of the scheme had been dropped entirely in order for the design to be appropriate for the listed building. One of the main objections to the proposal from local residents related to concerns regarding increased traffic generation and congestion. The transport team were however of the view that although there would be an increase in the number of trips to/from the site there would not be of sufficient impact to warrant refusal. Overall the proposed works were considered acceptable in relation to the listed building and its setting, the proposal was not considered to harm these heritage assets and approval was therefore recommended.
(4) Ms Redfern spoke on behalf of the Dyke Road and Highcroft Villas Local Community Group and the Save the Dyke Road Pub Group setting out their objections to the proposed scheme. Local objectors were very concerned on the impact that the proposals would have on the pub which was a valued community asset, impact on the listed building itself traffic, parking and congestion which would result. Also, in relation to rubbish and litter, overall in their view it would result in overdevelopment of the site.
(5) Councillor Heley spoke in her capacity as a Local Ward Councillor setting out her objections to the proposed scheme and those of her ward colleague, Councillor Hugh-Jones. They were in agreement with objectors that the proposal represented unacceptable overdevelopment and that there would be multiple issues associated with it including additional traffic during and following the construction period at a busy junction. The proposal would also jeopardise survival of the Dyke pub which was back in use after a three-year community campaign to reinstate it.
(6) Mr Mc Kee spoke on behalf of the applicant’s in support of their scheme. He stated that the scheme had undergone significant amendments in order to respond to objections received and to ensure that the character of the listed building was respected as was the manner in which it related to the neighbouring street scene and wider area, design and appearance, standard of accommodation, impact on amenity, highways issues and sustainability.
Questions of Officers
(7) Councillors Childs and Druitt sought clarification regarding the status of the garden area in relation to the current public house use, whether it was currently in use in conjunction with the pub use and how that could impact on the Asset of Community Value. Councillor Childs also sought clarification regarding the existing cold storage area, whether it would need to be relocated and the impact that could have on the garden area. It was confirmed that changes to the existing cold storage area were proposed but that alternatives were being found within the area being leased by the pub, and that the garden area was not part of the public house demise.
(8) Councillor Yates asked questions in relation to the layout and floor plan of the ground floor area of the building. It did not appear that a consistent approach was being adopted and he was concerned about the impact that the proposed changes could have on the asset of community value. If in future an application was made to change use of the garden area he wished to know whether that could nullify the existing permission. It was explained that the ACV gave no right of access to the land concerned although the community interest group had the right to bid to purchase the listed land should the owner intend to sell at a future date
(9) Councillor Shanks referred to the fact that a large number of objections had been received enquiring whether it would be possible to add a condition(s) which would help to ensure the pub use was protected. It was confirmed that would not be appropriate.
(10) Councillor Miller sought further clarification regarding access to the flats and in relation to bin storage/collection arrangements as a number of concerns had also been raised in respect of that issue. Access to the garden area would be separate from that to/from the building at ground floor level and would be for use by the flats at first floor level.
(11) Councillor Hill, the Chair, asked for clarification of the area of garden concerned as it appeared to be separated into two sections. Also access arrangements to the two separate parcels of land
(12) Councillor Bagaeen sought clarification why three rather than 2 flats were proposed and it was explained that the Committee needed to assess the application before them on its merits. Councillor Bagaeen referred to the layout specification and materials to be used asking what requirements there had been in terms energy efficiency and sustainability. It was explained that these could only be required in respect of new build developments.
Debate and Decision Making Process
(13) Councillor Littman stated that this site was located within his ward and as such he had followed the community interest which had resulted in re-instatement of the public house. He understood that the additional garden area to the rear of the building did not have specific protection and having considered the information put forward did not consider that there were valid grounds on which to refuse the application.
(14) Councillor Bagaeen stated that he was unable to support the proposed scheme as did not consider that it was being completed to a sufficiently high standard.
(15) Councillor Druitt stated that whilst he was pleased at the proposed improvements to be effected to the building and that fact that additional housing was to be provided, ultimately he felt unable to support the scheme due to the potential impact it could have on the ACV.
(16) Councillor Yates stated that he had listened carefully to all that had been said. Although he had concerns regarding piece-meal future development which could impact on the ACV, there were no grounds on which the application could be refused. Councillor Childs concurred in that view.
(17) Councillor Miller whilst also noting the improvements which were proposed had some concerns that the ACV could be undermined.
(18) The Chair, Councillor Hill, reminded the Committee that the needed to consider the applications before them that day. Any further future applications in respect of this site would need to be considered on their respective planning merits.
(19) A vote was taken and on a vote of 5 to 4 planning permission was granted.
75.3 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 set out in the report.
- Header BH2019 02290 218 Dyke Road, item 75C PDF 4 KB
- Plan BH2019 02273 02290 218 Dyke Road, item 75C PDF 330 KB
- Report BH2019 02290 218 Dyke Road, item 75C PDF 110 KB
- Cllr Reps BH2019 02273 02290 218 Dyke Road.doc, item 75C PDF 152 KB