Agenda item - To consider and determine planning applications on the plans list: 1 July 2009

(copy circulated separately).

(i)           TREES

 

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

 

(2)          The Chairman requested that where possible in future trees be referred to by their common names e.g., beech, sycamore in addition to their Latin forms.

 

(3)          Councillor Smart stated that following his attendance at the site visit he was of the view that the beech tree, one of the trees included in the application, appeared to be in perfect physical condition, improved the amenity of the neighbouring street scene and should be retained. Other Members concurred in that view and in consequence the Chairman took separate votes in respect of the three trees proposed to be felled.

 

(4)          A vote was taken and on a vote of 9 with 3 abstentions permission to fell the beech tree was refused. Members voted unanimously for the other trees included in the application to be felled.

 

46.1       RESOLVED – (1) That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation in Paragraph 7 and resolves to grant permission to fell the following trees covered by a TPO subject to the conditions set out in the report:

 

              Application BH2009/01030, 2a Croft Road, Brighton –

              the holly tree; and

              the sycamore tree

 

              (2) That the Committee has taken into consideration but refuses to grant permission to fell the beech tree included in Application BH2009/01030, 2a Croft Road on the grounds that it is considered to be a specimen in perfect physical condition, is located at a sufficient distance from the side of 2a Croft Road and adds amenity value both to that dwelling and to the neighbouring street scene.

 

              Note: Councillor Smart proposed that felling of the beech tree be refused, this was seconded by Councillor Wells. On a recorded vote Councillors Hyde (Chairman), Caulfield, Cobb, Hamilton, Hawkes, Kennedy, Pidgeon, Smart and Wells voted that permission to fell the tree be refused. Councillors Carden, Davey and Steedman abstained. Therefore on a vote of 9 with 3 abstentions permission to fell the tree was refused.

 

(ii)          SUBSTANTIAL OR CONTROVERSIAL APPLICATIONS OR APPLICATIONS DEPARTING FROM COUNCIL POLICY:

              1 JULY 2009

 

A.           Application BH2009/00508, Asda Store, Crowhurst Road, Brighton – Extension to existing store to provide 1,676 square metres of additional gross floor space.

 

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

 

(2)          The Senior Planning Officer, Ms Boggiano gave a presentation detailing the proposed extension to the existing store in order to provide an improved shopping environment for its existing customer base. The applicants had submitted sufficient supporting evidence to show that they were over trading within their current floor space. It was considered that there would be no adverse impact to other shopping centres, as there were none located nearby.

 

              Questions/Matters on Which Clarification was Sought

 

(3)          Councillor Steedman sought clarification of the term “overtrading”. In his view if the same amount of retailing took place within a smaller floor area that was to be welcomed and was preferable to its dispersal across a larger area.

 

(4)          Councillor Smart enquired regarding the percentage of overtrading and the percentage of food and non food goods. The Senior Planning Officer explained that the store was currently overtrading by some 31.5 %, the majority of which related to the sale of non food goods.

 

(5)          Councillor Pidgeon referred to the number of disabled parking spaces provided asking whether this represented a reduction to the number currently available. The Senior Planning Officer explained that a reduction from 34 to 28 was proposed but that this was still above the recommended minimum standard.

 

(6)          Councillor Hawkes also enquired regarding the number and location of car parking spaces proposed and sought confirmation that these were considered sufficient in relation to the increased trading area.

 

              Debate and Decision Making Process

 

(7)          Councillor Steedman stated that he was not convinced of the need for additional retail trading space and also had concerns regarding the appearance of the proposed extension which he considered was ugly and of a poor quality design. Notwithstanding that the site was located on an industrial estate a better design solution was needed than that which had been submitted. Mr Small (CAG) concurred in that view.

 

(8)          Councillor Hawkes stated in her view that the extension’s design was appropriate to its industrial setting.

 

(9)          A vote was taken and on a vote of 8 to 4 planning permission was granted.

 

46.2       RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in paragraph 10 of the report and resolves to grant planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report and to the additional conditions and informative set out below:

 

              Additional Conditions:

              Additional condition requiring replacement landscaping and tree planting to compensate for the trees being lost through the construction of the extension of the store;

 

              Plus, complimentary conditions in relation to maintenance and implementation. BH11.02.

 

              Additional Informative:

              Members of the Planning Committee expressed concern in relation to the quality and scale of the signage shown illustratively on the plans submitted with the application. Any application for signage in relation to the store should address these concerns.

 

              Note: Councillors Davey, Kennedy, Smart and Steedman voted that the application be refused.

 

B.          Application BH2009/00655, Covers Yard, Melbourne Street, Brighton – Demolition of existing yard buildings and erection of 3 storey terrace along eastern boundary of the site, and 4 and 7 storey apartment building along northern boundary of the site, providing a total of 39 residential units, cycle and car parking to rear.

 

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

 

(2)          The Area Planning Manager (East), Mr Walke gave a presentation detailing the constituent elements of the scheme by reference to floor plans and photomontages. Notwithstanding that the overall design of this scheme was considered to be an improvement on the previous one, it was considered that the scale and design of the development remained unacceptable and was too much for the site. The applicant had made reference to the neighbouring Sainsbury’s and Enterprise Point in justification of the development. However, the height of both of those buildings was considered an anomaly which was out of keeping with the prevailing street scene.

 

(3)          The level of on-site amenity provision was also considered inadequate as was the close proximity of the ground floor dwellings to the rear of the footway. The proposal that this be addressed by use of obscure glazing was considered unacceptable as these units would have a poor outlook. It was also noted that the site had been split and was smaller than that put forward in respect of the earlier refused mixed development.

 

(4)          Mr Ings spoke on behalf of the applicant in support of their application. The scheme would provide much needed affordable accommodation via a registered social landlord. The scheme would be within a designated tall buildings corridor and a provision was proposed in order to off-set the lack of on-site amenity/play provision although additional amenity space would be provided by the roof top gardens.

 

              Questions/Matters on Which Clarification was Sought

 

(5)          Councillor Smart and Mr Small (CAG) enquired regarding the location of the stairways to the top floor maisonettes and the materials from which these would be constructed, it was explained that they would be of timber with a powder coated steel framework and supports.

 

              Debate and Decision Making Process

 

(6)          Councillor Wells stated that he concurred with the Officer agreeing that the scale of the proposed development would be ugly and out of scale with the prevailing street scene, the resulting dwellings particularly those with obscure glazing would provide an unacceptable standard of accommodation.

 

(7)          Councillor Caulfield concurred stating that she was concerned that insufficient amenity/play space had been provided bearing in mind that some family units were to be provided. Overall she considered that the number of family units were too few. A number of one bedroom units were available across the city. One of the highest areas of identified need was for affordable family dwellings.

 

(8)          Councillor Kennedy concurred with Councillor Caulfield,also stating that the density of the proposed development was too high.

 

(9)          Councillor Hawkes stated that in her view the development was acceptable and would provide much needed affordable accommodation. She also considered that off-site provision towards children’s play space was acceptable.

 

(10)       A vote was taken and on a vote 9 to 3 planning permission was refused.

 

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

 

              Note: Councillors Carden, Hamilton and Hawkes voted that planning permission be granted.

 

C.          Application BH2007/02413, 44-46 Harrington Road, Brighton - Removal of condition 6 of planning permission 92/0099/fp to allow the residential unit to be used for storage and staff facilities (retrospective).

 

(1)          A vote was taken and Members voted unanimously that planning permission be granted.

 

46.4       RESOLVED - That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in paragraph 8 of the report and resolves to grant planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report.

 

D.          Application BH2008/03122, 25-26 St James’ Street, Brighton – Installation of new shop front to front and side elevations and alterations to Dorset Street façade.

 

(1)          The Senior Planning Officer, (Ms Boggiano) gave a presentation detailing appearance of the proposed shop front and indicating the arrangements for deliveries to be made. It was noted that minded to grant planning permission had been granted in March 2009 for a residential development of 24 flats including 13 affordable flats over 4 floors above the existing retail. Approval to erect an ATM had been granted under Officers’ delegated powers.

 

              Questions/Matters on Which Clarification was Sought

 

(2)          Councillor Davey enquired whether conditions could be included to control either/both the hours during which trading took place within the store itself or, the period during which deliveries were permitted to take place. The Development Control Manager explained that the application before the Committee related to the shop front, as the A1 use was established and no conditions had been imposed on any earlier permissions, it was not possible to do so.

 

(3)          Councillor Steedman requested to see visuals of the doors to the new delivery area and sought details regarding access/egress arrangements via Dorset Gardens in order to ascertain the impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents. Councillors Smart and Wells sought further details in this respect expressing concern regarding the potential detrimental impact this could have.

 

              Debate and Decision Making Process

 

(4)          Councillor Wells expressed concern that the delivery arrangements proposed could result in Dorset Gardens becoming blocked when deliveries took place. The Senior Planning Officer explained that deliveries to these premises had been made via Dorset Gardens for a number of years, it was an established use.

 

(5)          The Principal Transport Planner, Mr Reeves explained that it was proposed that the existing delivery doors would be moved a distance of 12.5 metres and that it was not envisaged that this would give rise to congestion or impede the flow of traffic.

 

              A vote was taken and on a vote of 8 with 4 abstentions planning permission was granted.

 

46.5       RESOLVED - That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in paragraph 8 of the report and resolves to grant planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report.

 

              Note: Councillors Hawkes, Smart, Steedman and Wells abstained from voting in respect of the above application.