brighton and hove city council list of major or ...present.brighton-hove.gov.uk/data/planning... ·...
TRANSCRIPT
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
BRIGHTON AND HOVE CITY COUNCIL
LIST OF MAJOR OR CONTROVERSIAL APPLICATIONS
OR APPLICATIONS CONTRARY TO COUNCIL POLICY
No: BH2004/01147/LB Ward: BRUNSWICK AND ADELAIDE
Address: Embassy Court, Kings Road
Proposal: External repairs replacing windows, modernisation of services
and lifts, refurbishment of reception.
Officer: Steve Walker, tel: 292337 Received
Date:
12 March 2004
Con Area: REGENCY SQUARE Expiry Date: 09 June 2004
Agent: Fothergill & Associates, 12 The Willows, Weybridge, Surrey
Applicant
:
Bluestorm Ltd, 45 Embassy Court, Brighton
1 SUMMARY
Embassy Court is an internationally-renowned 1930’s building designed
by Wells Coates. Over recent years it has fallen into disrepair and thus
has had a detrimental impact on this part of the seafront. These
proposed works represent the first steps towards its restoration and as
such are welcomed.
2 RECOMMENDATION
Minded to Grant Listed Building Consent subject to referral to GOSE
and to the receipt of satisfactory details, illustrating the effects of the
positioning of flue vents to the rear elevation, the following conditions:-
1. 01.05 Listed Building Consent.
2. Full details of the proposed positioning, method of reinstatement,
positioning and making secure of balcony railings shall be
submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority
before works commence. The works shall thereafter be carried out
in accordance with the agreed details.
Reason: To secure the adequate preservation of a Grade II* Listed
Building, in compliance with policies BE5 of the Hove Borough Local
Plan and HE1 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan Second Deposit
Draft.
3. The entrance doors shall be reinstated in accordance with the
details submitted in drawing no PL63 submitted on 26th May 2004.
Reason: To secure the adequate preservation of a Grade II* Listed
Building, in compliance with policies BE5 of the Hove Borough Local
Plan and HE1 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan Second Deposit
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
Draft.
4. Details of the proposed replacement of the balcony cills shall be
submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority
before works commence. The works shall thereafter be carried out
in accordance with the agreed details.
Reason: To secure the adequate preservation of a Grade II* Listed
Building, in compliance with policies BE5 of the Hove Borough Local
Plan and HE1 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan Second Deposit
Draft.
5. A colour scheme for the rendering, windows and balustrading shall
be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning
Authority before works commence. The works shall thereafter be
carried out in accordance with the agreed scheme.
Reason: To secure the adequate preservation of a Grade II* Listed
Building, in compliance with policies BE5 of the Hove Borough Local
Plan and HE1 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan Second Deposit
Draft.
6. Full details of the proposed window pattern and opening
arrangements shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the
Local Planning Authority before works commence. The works shall
thereafter be carried out in accordance with the agreed details.
Reason: To secure the adequate preservation of a Grade II* Listed
Building, in compliance with policies BE5 of the Hove Borough Local
Plan and HE1 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan Second Deposit
Draft
7. Full details of the existing and proposed rainwater and soil
pipework shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local
Planning Authority before works commence. The works shall
thereafter be carried out in accordance with the agreed details.
Reason: To secure the adequate preservation of a Grade II* Listed
Building, in compliance with policies BE5 of the Hove Borough Local
Plan and HE1 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan Second Deposit
Draft
Informatives:
1. This decision to grant Listed Building Consent has been taken
having regard to the policies and proposals in the Brighton
Borough Local Plan/Hove Borough Local Plan and Brighton & Hove
Local Plan Second Deposit Draft set out below, and to all relevant
material considerations, including Supplementary Planning
Guidance:
Brighton Borough Local Plan:
ENV.31 – Listed Buildings
Brighton and Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft:
HE1 – Listed Buildings
Supplementary Planning Guidance
SPGBH10 Listed Buildings – General Advice
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
SPGBH11 Listed Building Interiors
2. The applicant is reminded that planning permission is required for
some elements of this work.
3 THE SITE
This application relates to Embassy Court a twelve storey residential
block on King’s Road on the junction of Western Street, adjacent to
Brunswick Terrace in Hove. It is a Grade II* Listed Building and lies within
the Regency Square Conservation Area.
4 RELEVANT HISTORY
There is a long history in respect of this building, Amongst approved
applications include the installation of handrails to rear walkways and
staircase, and the reinstatement of a staircase to serve the caretakers
flat. In 1995, applications for the refurbishment and replacement of
steel doors, windows, railings and waste pipes, the repair and
redecoration of concrete and render, replacement of water tanks and
the formation of 2 flats, were submitted and later withdrawn. Similarly in
2000, an application for the relocation of internal entrance doors was
submitted and later withdrawn. In 2001, applications were refused for
the installation of 3 pairs of telecommunication antennas and
reinstallation of safety railings with ground floor equipment cabin.
5 THE APPLICATION
The application is for numerous works for the restoration of the building
and refurbishment. Principal works comprise:-
1. The removal of outer coating of paint and loose render, install
replacement reinforcement and making good in cement and sand
to match existing render and paint;
2. The replacement of all the windows with exact patterns and
opening lights as original, save at 3 flats, two of which already
installed with Consent and patio doors to a third flat which were
installed prior to the building being listed. Windows to the front
facing elevations would be double-glazed, with the exposed width
of the frame the same as the single glazed system, and windows to
the rear galleries and staircase would be single glazed.
3. The replacement of rainwater and soil pipes with new cast iron
pipes.
4. The abandonment of the existing pipework associated with the
existing oil fired boilers, (which have reached the end of their useful
life, and resulted in leaking pipework) and its replacement with
tenant-chosen individual heating systems. This will require the
construction of a false ceiling along each of the rear gallery
walkways so as to accommodate service wiring and flues, and the
installation of flue extract ducts.
5. Replacement of the front entrance doors.
6. Internal works to conceal new service arrangements within the flats.
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
7. The reinstatement of missing balcony rails to the tenth floor with a
stainless steel equivalent.
There are other more minor works, which nevertheless are important,
detailing such as the overhaul and repair of internal doors to the
common parts and the double doors between the galleries and the lift
lobbies, and refurbishment of signage.
In support of the application, the agent has stated that the reasons
why refurbishment has not been carried out long ago are complex. He
points to the fact that the replacement of the windows was the
responsibility of each of the 72 leaseholders, whereas the external
fabric was the responsibility of the freeholder. This has been a major
contribution to the impasse, as the two must be carried out together
for the refurbishment works to be effective. Whilst works have been
delayed costs have been mounting. A majority of the tenants are now
in agreement with the proposals, which obviates any legal wrangling
over changes to leases. There is thus the opportunity to integrate the
works and carry out refurbishment of the block with both window
replacement and concrete/render repairs being carried out together.
A pilot scheme is proposed to be implemented from June, to give an
indication of proposed methods of repair and colouring, with a main
contract, subject to planning approval, running from 12 July with a
three-week lead-in to the main works, which are expected to run for 52
weeks. The changeover of heating systems would be anticipated to
take place in the summer months, next year. The agent has stressed
the need to keep to this timescale, to maintain the momentum
necessary to carry the project forward.
6 CONSULTATIONS
External:
Neighbours: The occupiers of neighbouring properties have been
consulted on the proposal and a site notice displayed. No comments
have been received.
English Heritage: No comments received.
Twentieth Century Society: Gives its enthusiastic support for the
proposed works. Note that three flats would have different treatment
and it would be useful to know greater detail of this, as it would be
desirable to treat windows, surfaces and fittings coherently throughout
the building.
Internal:
Conservation & Design: Fully supports the proposed method of
structural repair and proposed replacement of the windows. The
application is light on detail in respect of physical changes such as
entrance door design, reception area works and the proposed
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
balustrade to the top floor, and further information will be required in
this regard. There are, however, no objections to the principle of these
proposals, The greatest concern is the impact of the flues on the
exterior of the building and further information must be supplied so as
to allow an adequate assessment.
7 PLANNING POLICIES
Brighton Borough Local Plan:
ENV.31 – Listed Buildings
Brighton and Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft:
HE1 – Listed Buildings
Supplementary Planning Guidance
SPGBH10 Listed Buildings – General Advice
SPGBH11 Listed Building Interiors
8 CONSIDERATIONS
The sole issue are the effects of the proposed refurbishment works on
the character and appearance of this Grade II* Listed Building.
The structural repair method suggested in the Report of the Structural
Surveyors is fully supported by the Conservation Officer.
There are no objections to the works proposed to the two front
elevations facing King’s Road and Western Street. The window detail
would be slightly amended from the current pattern to reinstate the
original arrangement of glazing bars whilst permitting a method of
opening which allows windows to be cleaned from either inside the
flats or from balcony access. The Twentieth Century Society would
prefer discussion concerning three flat windows which are not
proposed to be changed, but these have either been subject to the
necessary consents in the past, or were installed before the building
was Listed in 1986. It should also be noted that the windows to two of
these flats are set in from the main elevation at ninth floor level, and
would therefore be difficult to view from street level. The third window is
sliding patio doors leading to a balcony which are again set back from
the main frontage. Both the Society and the Conservation Officer
agree that the introduction of single and double glazed W20 windows
is an appropriate way to deal with the problem of existing rusting
window frames. It is understood that the original window frames were
painted in a pale yellow colour and a similar colour scheme (including
white rendered walls with a hint of yellow, and terracotta balustrading)
is to be the subject of a pilot colour scheme which will be applied to a
small portion of the building to test its appropriateness. Paint flake
details are currently being undertaken to ensure that the correct
colours are being chosen.
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
The proposed reinstatement of balcony railings is also supported in
principle subject to detailing, which will also require infiling of gaps
(with a mesh) to meet Health and Safety Regulations and adequate
treatment at plinth level to prevent rusting which has, in turn, previously
resulted in the plinth cracking.
To the rear elevations, the lowering of the ceiling in the galleries to
accommodate services is acceptable, being positioned slightly higher
than the bottom of the parapet downstand, and therefore not readily
visible. The flue extract vents are, however, slightly problematic. Given
that all flats will require such a feature, care should be taken to ensure
they would detract as little as possible from the lines of the building
when viewed from the rear. Whilst details of the proposed flue have
been submitted, a photo montage or drawing is required which would
illustrate the effects of the placing of a flue for each flat on the
appearance of the elevations as a whole. It should be noted that no
flue extracts would be positioned on the front elevation. Provided that
the effect of the extracts is outweighed by the major benefits otherwise
to be gained from the overall project, the scheme as a whole would
be fully supported.
Conclusion:
The works proposed under this application would constitute significant
refurbishment of the exterior and communal areas of the building. As
such they would not only help preserve and enhance the appearance
of a major landmark in the City which has become an increasing
eyesore over recent years, but also have an immediate positive
impact on the surrounding conservation areas of Regency Town and
Brunswick and Adelaide. There are no objections to the principle of
any of the proposed works although satisfactory methods of
refurbishment have not been fully detailed. Any outstanding methods
of restoration and refurbishment may be dealt with by an appropriate
condition. The sole concern is the effect of the positioning of the flue
extracts on the rear elevation, and further drawings/illustrations have
been requested to assess the impact. It is therefore recommended
that Listed Building Consent be granted subject to this information
being satisfactory.
9 EQUALITIES IMPLICATIONS
None identified.
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
No: BH2004/00526/FP Ward: SOUTH PORTSLADE
Address: 43-45 Norway Street
Proposal: Removal of condition 6 of permission BH2000/00196/FP in order
to allow the permission to enure for the benefit of others, other
than Doric (UK) Ltd.
Officer: Max Woodford, tel: 292106 Received
Date:
12 January 2004
Con Area: N/A Expiry Date: 13 April 2004
Agent: Dean Wilson Laing, 96 Church Street, Brighton
Applicant
:
MT Paramount Limited, 43-45 Norway Street
1 SUMMARY
This application seeks permission to remove a personal condition
attached to a 2000 Planning Permission to change the use of the
premises to storage and distribution. The application was considered
at the 28th of April 2004 Committee when it was deferred for a more
detailed legal opinion about whether additional conditions could be
imposed. This question is addressed in the consultations section, along
with a more detailed comment from the Traffic Team. The application
was then discussed at the 19th May Committee when it was deferred
again to obtain further information about any history of noise
complaints and how these have been investigated and dealt with.
2 RECOMMENDATION
Grant Planning Permission.
Informatives:
1. The applicant should be aware that all other conditions relating to
Planning Permission Ref: BH2000/00196/FP remain in force.
2. This decision to grant Planning Permission has been taken having
regard to the policies and proposals in the Hove Borough Local
Plan and Brighton & Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft set out
below, and to all relevant material considerations:
Hove Borough Local Plan:
TR17 - Road Safety
Brighton and Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft:
TR - Safe Development (New Policy)
QD27 - Protection of amenity
3 THE SITE
This application relates to a part one-storey and part two-storey small
to medium sized warehouse building situated on the corner of Norway
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
Street and Denmark Road in Portslade. The area is predominantly
residential, though there are some commercial uses nearby, including
another food distribution warehouse on the neighbouring site. A one
way system is in operation in the streets around. The building is not
listed or within a conservation area.
4 RELEVANT HISTORY
In 2000 Planning Permission was granted for the change of use of the
building from light industrial (B1) to storage and distribution (B8) (Ref:
BH2000/00196/FP). This permission carried a number of conditions
relating to limiting the hours of use, limiting the hours of vehicular
movements and unloading, noise emissions and closing doors other
than during deliveries. A final condition also limited the use the
applicants, Doric (UK) Ltd.
In 2002 Planning Permission was refused to vary condition 3 of the 2000
permission to allow deliveries on a Sunday.
An application was submitted in 2002 on the site to demolish and build
residential (Ref: BH2002/00749/FP). This had a minded to grant
resolution, awaiting the signing of a section 106 legal agreement, but
has been withdrawn by the applicant since this application was
submitted.
5 THE APPLICATION
This application seeks permission for the removal of the personal
condition on the 2000 change of use permission, which limited the use
to be for the benefit of the applicant (Doric (UK) Ltd). The ownership
has changed already, making this application retrospective.
6 CONSULTATIONS
External:
Neighbours: Objections have been received from 67 Vale Road and
Vale Park Residents Association. They make the point that the Traffic
Manager in 2000 was concerned that large delivery vehicles could
block the junction but that the then user (Doric) did not use such
vehicles. They also mention that servicing problems have arisen, and
outline various breaches of past conditions. The use of a forklift is raised
as being a problem. The Residents Association request that a site visit is
made by the Committee.
An objection has also been received from 37 Franklin Road, again
relating to traffic problems resulting from servicing the site leading to
hazard to pedestrians and drivers, as well as inconvenience.
Internal:
Traffic Manager: No objections on traffic grounds. Does not feel that
there are any further conditions we could reasonably or enforceably
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
impose. The main problems presently arise from double parking and
the use of a forklift. These are highways issues which the Police have
looked into, as these operations take place on the public highway.
Environmental Health: No objection. Also provided details about the
noise complaint history: About 2 years ago a complaint was received
about noise emanating from plant on the ground floor front elevation.
It was established that a nuisance existed and a notice was served.
However, the complainants were unwilling to pursue the matter further
so the case did not progress beyond that point.
Legal Services: Believe that there is some scope under s.73 of the Town
and Country Planning Act to impose conditions, providing they do not
substantially alter the character of the original consent. However, we
would need to have very robust reasons for doing so – i.e. we would
need to be able to justify at an appeal why they are being imposed
now and were not originally imposed.
7 PLANNING POLICIES
Hove Borough Local Plan:
TR17 - Road Safety
Brighton and Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft:
TR - Safe Development (New Policy)
QD27 - Protection of amenity
8 CONSIDERATIONS
The main considerations in the determining of this application are
traffic consideration and the way in which traffic impacts on the
amenities of surrounding occupiers. This must then be weighed up
against the government guidance on planning conditions given in
Circular 11/95.
Many of the neighbouring objections arise from having a commercial
use in residential area with tight streets, combined with the fact that
there have been complaints in the past that other conditions on the
2000 permission have not been complied with. However, enforcement
of the remaining conditions is a separate matter and cannot be used
as grounds to refuse an application. The 2000 Planning Permission
obviously accepted the principle of a storage and distribution business
operating out of the building and this cannot be revisited. The hours of
use and loading hours conditions address some of the traffic concerns
and the amenity issues that arise. The personal condition was
suggested by the Traffic Engineer to further ensure that the traffic
movements were limited. However, its imposition conflicts with
government guidance given in Circular 11/95. This Circular states:
Personal permissions
93. Unless the permission otherwise provides, planning permission runs with the land and it is
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
seldom desirable to provide otherwise. There are occasions, however, where it is proposed
exceptionally to grant permission for the use of a building or land for some purpose which
would not normally be allowed at the site, simply because there are strong compassionate or
other personal grounds for doing so. In such a case the permission should normally be made
subject to a condition that it shall enure only for the benefit of a named person-usually the
applicant (model condition 35): a permission personal to a company is inappropriate because
its shares can be transferred to other persons without affecting the legal personality of the
company. This condition will scarcely ever be justified in the case of a permission for the
erection of a permanent building.
It is therefore clear that a personal permission should not have been
imposed in these circumstances and that the limiting of it to a
company was also erroneous. The condition should therefore be
removed. It is not considered that any replacement conditions would
be appropriate as the principle of a B8 use is established on the site
and some controls already exist by virtue of the conditions imposed on
the 2000 consent. It is not therefore considered that the imposition of
any further conditions would be either reasonable or enforceable.
Furthermore, the Traffic Manager has raised no objections to this
application. It should also be noted that the previous condition did not
limit traffic activities in anyway as Doric (UK) Ltd could have changed
the nature of their business and used large vehicles without any
consent needed. The comments of the Legal Services Team are noted
in that while they are of the opinion that extra conditions can be
added, there does need to be a robust justification for them. This
justification would need to be linked to the reason for imposing the
original condition, as mentioned above, so could not be sustained in
this case.
It is noted that concerns have been raised about the soundproofing of
plant and machinery at the site. In light of the information above any
new conditions to this effect could not be sustained. There was a noise
complaint raised with the Environmental Health Team about the plant
but this was not pursued after the complainants requested the matter
not be pursued. It is noted that the original 2000 Planning Permission
carried a condition requiring that noise levels of plant and equipment
do not exceed 5dB below background. There is no planning
enforcement history relating to non-compliance of this condition.
However, if in the future neighbours are concerned about noise from
this plant then we can investigate and enforce this condition if there is
a breach. Therefore, as well as being difficult to justify in terms of being
reasonable, there is also no need to impose new soundproofing
conditions as a robust such condition already exists.
9 CONCLUSIONS
For the reasons outlined above it is considered that the condition
subject of this application conflicts with government advice and
should therefore be removed. For the reasons outlined it is not
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
suggested that any replacement conditions be imposed, as there is
not a robust way of linking them to the condition that is being
removed.
10 EQUALITIES IMPLICATIONS
None identified.
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
No: BH2004/00885/FP Ward: EAST BRIGHTON
Address: The Barley Mow, 92 St George's Road
Proposal: Retention of existing timber structure and retractable cover over
rear yard.
Officer: Karen Tipper, tel: 293335 Received
Date:
15 March 2004
Con Area: EAST CLIFF Expiry Date: 17 May 2004
Agent: M J Lewis, 25 St Nicholas Lodge, Church Street, Brighton
Applicant
:
Pubs-U-Like, 3rd Floor, Enterprise House, 83-85 Western Road,
Hove
The application was deferred for site visit at the last Sub-Committee on 19th
May 2004.
1 RECOMMENDATION
Grant planning permission (unconditional).
Informatives:
1. This decision is based on Malcolm Lewis’s drawing nos. 834/01 and
unnumbered photographs submitted on 11th March 2004.
2. This decision to grant Planning Permission has been taken having
regard to the policies and proposals in the Brighton Borough Local
Plan and the Brighton & Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft set
out below, and to all relevant material considerations:
Brighton Borough Local Plan:
ENV3 – Extensions and alterations should be to a high standard of
design
ENV5 – Extensions and alterations should be well sited in relation to
the site and the surrounding area
ENV6 – Overlooking and loss of privacy
ENV22 – Conservation areas
ENV33 – Effect on the setting of a Listed Building
Brighton and Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft:
QD.14 – Extensions and alterations
QD.27 – Protection of amenity
HE.1 – Listed Buildings
HE.6 – Development within or affecting the setting of conservation
areas
2 THE SITE
The site is the rear yard of the Barley Mow, situated within the East Cliff
conservation area. To the rear of the site is Marine Square. The rear
yard of the site contains a timber structure and retractable cover as
well as a corrugated iron overhang at the rear. The pub is not Listed.
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
3 RELEVANT HISTORY
95/0401/FP - Erection of conservatory at rear and extension to existing
store to provide customer seating as well as kitchen and WC facilities.
Granted with conditions 6th June 1995.
95/0403/CA Demolition of existing outbuildings. Granted with
conditions 6th June 1995.
4 THE APPLICATION
This is for the retention of the timber structure and retractable cover in
the rear garden.
5 CONSULTATIONS
External:
Neighbours:
4 letters of objection received from 12a, Flat 2 12a, Flat4 12a Marine
Square and 12 Marine Square, on the grounds that the structure has
brought about an intensification of use of the Public House, ending in
the rear yard being used in most weather, daytime and night-time. In
effect all year round, leading to the infringement of neighbours’
amenity and quality of life, due to the increase of noise and
disturbance. The structure is also considered unsuitable for the area, as
the yard is surrounded by residential properties.
Further letter received from Flat 2, 12A Marine Square disputing
description of rear area as ‘open’ and whether planning permission is
required to use it by customers. Alleges retractable cover amplifies
noise. Disputes Environmental Health claims in respect of complaints
history and comments about proposal.
1 letter of support received from Kemp Town Books, 91 St. George’s
Road on the grounds that the structure is appropriate and much
needed.
Councillor Gill Mitchell: Objects to the retrospective application for the
retention of existing timber structure and retractable cover on the
grounds that it is considered an incremental move on the part of the
applicants towards the ever greater intensification and year round use
of the rear yard, which is bordered by housing, with bedroom and
living room windows only a few metres away. It is not possible to sound
proof the structure and the neighbouring residents are being disturbed
by the loud voices and pub games that involve the use of a
microphone.
The Kingscliffe Society: Object to the retention of the timber structure
as it has lead to the intensification of use of the rear yard leading to an
increase in noise disturbance. It is a problem that has grown up
around the residents rather than one that existed when they took up
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
occupancy of their homes. The Kingscliffe Society do not wish to
impede business interests or the enjoyment that customers obtain from
drinking outside when the weather is favourable, however the needs
and rights of residents in respect of the quiet enjoyment of their homes
in an important factor that should override commercial interests in this
instance where outside use has so built up both in terms of numbers
and periods of time. It is considered that the application should be
refused on the grounds of protecting residential amenity.
Internal:
Conservation & Design: No objections. The structure causes no harm to
the character or appearance of the conservation area or the setting
of the adjoining listed buildings in Marine Square.
Environmental Health – No history of complaints. Understand there are
no current restrictions on opening hours and the beer garden has been
operating the usual pub licensing hours. No noise or odour problems
envisaged. Noise from a beer garden can be investigated as a
‘nuisance’ as defined under the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
6 PLANNING POLICIES
Brighton Borough Local Plan:
ENV3 – Extensions and alterations should be to a high standard of
design
ENV5 – Extensions and alterations should be well sited in relation to the
site and the surrounding area
ENV6 – Overlooking and loss of privacy
ENV22 – Conservation areas
ENV33 – Effect on the setting of a Listed Building
Brighton and Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft:
QD14 – Extensions and alterations
QD27 – Protection of amenity
HE1 – Listed Buildings
HE6 – Development within or affecting the setting of conservation
areas
7 CONSIDERATIONS
The two main areas of concern are whether the application for
retrospective approval for the timber structure and retractable cover
causes any harm to the character and appearance of the East Cliff
conservation area and adjoining Listed Buildings as well as any harm to
the amenity of adjoining residential properties.
In regards to the impact that the structure has on the conservation
area and adjoining listed buildings, the Conservation Officer considers
that it does not cause any harm either to Marine Square, containing
grade II Listed Buildings, situated to the rear of the site, nor to the East
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
Cliff conservation area, and therefore does not have any objections.
Considering these comments and relevant local policies on structures
within conservation areas, there are no planning grounds for refusal on
these issues.
With regard to the effect that the structure has on the amenity of the
adjoining residential properties, it is considered that there is no loss of
visual amenity, as the structure fits well with the existing site and its
appearance does not cause any harm. However the objectors have
mentioned there has been an increase in noise disturbance since the
timber structure was erected. However, planning permission is not
required to use an open area within the curtilage of a pub for use by
customers; consequently any noise disturbance arising from the
increased use of the rear yard cannot be controlled through the
planning process but may be subject to the Environmental Protection
Act.
8 EQUALITIES IMPLICATIONS
None identified.
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
No: BH2003/03698/OA Ward: MOULSECOOMB & BEVENDEAN
Address: Land adjacent to Falmer Station Goods Yard, Station Approach
Proposal: Outline application for 3 linked buildings 2-5 storeys high to
accommodate student halls of residence.
Officer: Pete Johnson, tel: 292138 Received
Date:
20 November
2003
Con Area: N/A Expiry Date: 10 March 2004
Agent: VLH Associates, 27 Watling Street, Canterbury
Applicant
:
Chesterhouse Properties Ltd, c/o VLH Associates, 27 Watling
Street, Canterbury
1 SUMMARY
This is an outline application, which has also been the subject of an
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) It is considered that the
proposal is appropriate for this site, which has difficulties of access
from the adjacent A27 trunk road. It is not desirable to significantly
increase the volume of traffic using the present access to Falmer
station and it is now evident that it is not possible to provide an
acceptable alternative vehicular access. This makes the site
impractical for use for ‘hi-tech’ industrial purposes.
The use proposed is connected to Sussex University and so echoes the
‘academic corridor’ theme of the allocation in the local plans. It will
be serviced from the main campus via the new underpass and
overcomes the concerns of traffic generation that any other use for
the site would have. The bulk of the building is considered appropriate
for this site and a condition to restrict the development to the
arrangement of bulk shown on the submitted drawings is acceptable
to the applicant. (Such a restriction will overcome the need for a
further EIA when the reserved matters application is submitted).
Approval is therefore recommended.
The application is to be the subject of a Sub-Committee site visit.
2 RECOMMENDATION
Minded to grant outline planning permission, subject to clarification
whether this application constitutes a “Departure” from the provisions
of the Development Plan, a Section 106 Agreement or Undertaking, to
secure:
a) A transport statement, including an agreement to undertake
improvement works to mitigate any disbenefits of the
development;
b) A detailed noise assessment study, including an agreement to
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
implement subsequent recommendations made by the Local
Planning Authority to safeguard the amenities of the buildings'
occupants;
c) Contributions towards % for art and an accessible bus stop with
real-time bus information display;
and to the following conditions:
1. 01.02 Outline planning permission.
2 01.03 Reserved matters.
3. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town & Country Planning Act
1990, detailed drawings submitted pursuant to condition 2 above
shall be in accordance with the layout, height and massing shown
on the submitted drawings P01, P02 &P03.
Reason: To ensure that the development is of a scale and form
which is appropriate for the site and which will not harm the
character of the Sussex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural
Beauty, which would be contrary to policy ENV.54 of the Brighton
Borough Plan and policies NC.6 & NC.7 of the Brighton & Hove
Local Plan Second Deposit Draft.
4. 02.06B Satisfactory refuse storage.
5. 03.01B Samples of materials.
6. 06.02B Cycle parking details to be submitted.
7. 06.03B Cycle parking facilities to be implemented.
8. 04.01 Landscaping scheme (submission) Add ‘and to comply with
policy ENV.61of the Brighton Borough Plan and policy QD.15 of the
Brighton & Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft.’
9. 04.02 Landscaping scheme (implementation) Add ‘and to comply
with policy ENV.61of the Brighton Borough Plan and policy QD.15
of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft.’
10. 04.03 Protection of existing trees Add ‘and to comply with policy
ENV.61of the Brighton Borough Plan and policy QD.16 of the
Brighton & Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft.’
11. Before any works commence, full details of the physical and
regulatory restrictions to prevent general vehicular access onto
the access road and other open areas of the site shall be
submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning
Authority. Those measures as may be approved shall be
implemented in full and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction
of the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To prevent parking on the site in the interests of highway
safety and to comply with policy ENV.1of the Brighton Borough
Plan and policy TR.5A of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan Second
Deposit Draft.
12. Before the use hereby approved is implemented, details of
direction signs to the site for vehicles and pedestrians and the
dropping-off and collection of students and their possessions shall
be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Highways
Agency and the Local Planning Authority. Those measures as may
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
be approved shall be implemented in full and thereafter
maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To prevent parking on the site in the interests of highway
safety and to comply with policy ENV.1of the Brighton Borough
Plan and policy TR.5A of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan Second
Deposit Draft.
13. The method of site construction and operation for the
development shall be carried out in accordance with a scheme
to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority prior to any development commencing. Reason: The site
is in a very sensitive location with respect to groundwater, and in
order to protect the quality of drinking water supplies and comply
with policy SU.3 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan Second Deposit
Draft, the working methods will need to be carefully considered
14. No development approved by this permission shall be
commenced until a scheme for the provision of surface water
drainage works has been submitted to and approved in writing by
the Local Planning Authority. The drainage works shall be
completed in accordance with the details and timetable agreed.
Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding by ensuring the
provision of a satisfactory means of surface water disposal and to
comply with policy SU.4 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan Second
Deposit Draft
15. Foul sewage pipework and connections shall be made of ductile
iron or a suitable alternative.
Reason: The site lies within the source protection zone 1 for the
Falmer public water supply, i.e. within a 50 day travel time from
the borehole(s), and measures are needed to avoid pathogen
contamination of the water supply and comply with policy SU.3 of
the Brighton & Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft
16. No development approved by this permission shall be
commenced until the method for piling foundations has been
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. The piling shall thereafter be undertaken only in
accordance with the approved details.
Reason: The site lies within a very sensitive groundwater area and
piling could lead to the contamination of groundwater in the
underlying aquifer. These measures are needed to comply with
policy SU.3 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan Second Deposit
Draft.
17. Prior to the commencement of development full details of the cut
and fill operation shall be submitted to and approved in writing by
the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with the Environment
Agency. The works shall be carried out in accordance with the
approved details.
Reason: The site is in a very sensitive location with respect to
ground water, and in order to protect the quality of drinking water
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
supplies and comply with policy SU.3 of the Brighton & Hove Local
Plan Second Deposit Draft, the working methods will need to be
carefully considered.
18. Before any works commence, details of construction including
hours of work and access to/egress from the site for construction
traffic, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the
Highways Agency and the Local Planning Authority. The works
shall only proceed in accordance with the scheme approved by
the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety and the amenities of the
area and to comply with policy TR.5A of the Brighton & Hove Local
Plan Second Deposit Draft.
Informatives:
1. This decision is based on drawing nos. P01, P02 & P03 submitted
on 20/11/03.
2. This decision to grant Outline Planning Permission has been taken
having regard to the policies and proposals in the East Sussex and
Brighton & Hove Structure Plan, Brighton Borough Local Plan and
Brighton & Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft set out below,
and to all relevant material considerations.
Brighton Borough Local Plan:
EP.4 Allocation of site for ‘high tech’(Class B.1) light
industrial/business space
ENV.1 Ensuring new development does not detract from the
environment
ENV.54 Development in the AONB
Brighton and Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft:
EM.2 Allocation of site for ‘high tech’(Class B.1) light
industrial/business space.
SU.2 Efficiency of development in the use of energy, water and
materials.
SU.10 Noise nuisance
SU.15 Waste management
QD.1 Design- quality of development and design statements.
QD.6 Public Art
QD.15 Landscape Design
QD.16 Trees and hedgerows
QD.17 Protection and integration of nature conservation features
QD.27 Protection of amenity
NC.6 Development in the countryside/ downland
NC.7 Sussex Downs AONB
East Sussex and Brighton and Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011:
E.5 Safeguarding existing land and premises
E.14 Academic corridor
3. Conditions 13 to 17 will be considered in consultation with the
Environment Agency and the applicant is therefore advised to
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
copy the Agency in on any communication regarding these
conditions.
4. Conditions 11 and 12 will be considered with the advice of the
council’s Traffic Manager and the applicant is advised to consult
the Traffic Manager prior to preparing any detailed drawings.
3 THE SITE
This site is between the main A27 Lewes Road near Falmer station and
the Brighton to Lewes railway line, but does not include the area
immediately adjoining the railway, which is the former goods yard and
is still owned by British Rail. The two areas of land are separated by a
row of mature trees which are considered to form an important
feature of the landscape.
4 RELEVANT HISTORY
No relevant applications, but it is noted that the site is identified in the
adopted Brighton Borough Plan as a site allocated for development
for ‘high tech’(Class B.1) light industrial/business space. (Proposal EP.4).
In the emerging Brighton & Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft, the
site is similarly allocated (Policy EM.2).
5 THE APPLICATION
This is an outline application and the proposal is for an arrangement of
3 cross-shaped blocks of student accommodation, joined at the
corners and linked by open quadrangles. The blocks vary in height
from 2 to 5 storeys with a consistent roof height along the Lewes Road
frontage, starting at 2 storeys high adjacent to the pedestrian
underpass and, with the ground level falling away, 3 storeys at the
western end of the site. The blocks at the rear of the site are a storey
higher at each end and 2 storeys higher along the central portion
adjacent to the open quadrangles.
Whilst this is an outline application, the applicant has agreed that an
approval can restrict any future development to the arrangement of
height, layout and massing shown on the submitted drawings. Such
restriction might be an appropriate tie to the indicative drawings on
which comments from consultees of the application and the EIA were
based. Such a restriction would overcome the need for a further EIA
for the reserved matters application. The building will accommodate
440-450 bed spaces.
6 CONSULTATIONS
External:
Neighbours: Letter of objection received from 3, Station Approach,
expressing concerns of noise and disturbance, loss of light, and
parking problems.
Letter also received from 4, Station Approach, with no objection to the
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
proposed use, but expressing concern that the height would obstruct
the view to the west.
Letters of support for the application received from 2, Station
Approach & 41, Park Wall Farm Cottages, suggesting some
improvements to the area that might be advantageous, such as
closing the goods yard and measures to reduce road noise from the
A27.
Architects’ Panel:
This scheme was considered by the Panel in November, prior to
submission. The Panel considered that the scheme is potentially an
innovative and acceptable approach to developing this difficult site.
Sussex Downs Conservation Board:
The Board would object if this loss of business use significantly
increased pressure for the future development of Toad’s Hole Valley.
However, if the City Council does not consider that this loss would
increase pressure for development of this other site, the Board would
not object on this basis. The Council’s Planning Policy unit considers
that the proposed change would have no effect on pressure to
develop Toad’s Hole Valley)
English Nature: No comments.
Environment Agency: The site is extremely sensitive and must be
protected from pollution as it lies within Source Protection Zone 1 for
the Falmer Public Water Supply borehole. A Hydrogeological study
should have been undertaken to assess the significance of such a
major infrastructure development on the groundwater sources and
resource of the area. However, the Agency is of the opinion that their
concerns can be covered by suitable planning conditions and
requests the imposition of 5 conditions.
Internal:
Traffic Manager: This application should have been accompanied by
a more substantial transport statement The applicants have
demonstrated only a ‘ passive’ commitment to the use of sustainable
transport, by referring to the existing good public transport services
and proposing a largely car free development. This does not meet the
requirement of policy TR1 to provide for the demand for travel that
they create. The applicants should consider issues such as the
standard of provision at the nearest bus stop and contact transport
providers to identify any existing problems in the area, such as delays
or capacity, which may be worsened by the proposed development.
If problems are likely to be worsened the applicants should promote
proposals to prevent this happening.
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
Several of the arrangements proposed to minimise car use need to be
formally specified. The dropping off point for resident students’
possessions when they move in or out should be defined and a written
commitment made to provide trolleys. Direction signing for the new
halls of residence should direct drivers to a car park on the other side
of the A27 and pedestrian signing should direct visitors from there to
the new residences. Signing should also make it clear that access to
the site is very restricted. (This is also required by the Highways
Agency).
The applicants should be required to explain how the use of the
proposed service access road will be restricted as intended. This would
preferably be done by a gate or bollards controlled by a passcard
system. If the controls are by informal regulation and good intent only
it is very possible that there will be uncontrolled parking along and
adjacent to the service access road.
The applicants do not state the number of cycle parking spaces
proposed although positions are indicated on the plans. It is suggested
that the aim should be to provide 1 space per resident.
The disabled parking provision indicated is only 5 bays and this is
presumably intended only for visitors. The applicants have indicated
informally that there will be few, if any, disabled students living in this
hall. This needs to be formally clarified- if there are to be disabled
residents they must be provided for and if not a condition to this effect
needs to be agreed.
It is not accepted that the applicants have demonstrated that the site
is commercially unmarketable because substantial car parking cannot
be made available.
Finally the access routes for construction traffic will need to be agreed
with the Council and the Highways Agency.
To summarise, the application is acceptable in principle on transport
grounds but there are detailed aspects as described above which
require resolution
Planning Policy:
The proposal is contrary to policy concerning the use of the site,
although there may be a case for an exception to be made and the
applicant’s statement makes several assertions although the evidence
to support these assertions has not yet been produced. The
application is for a site in the AONB and landscape analysis,
protection and planting scheme could be prejudiced by not reserving
the numbers of dwellings proposed until a full application is received.
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
The site is allocated for ‘high tech’ employment use in policy EP4 of
the adopted Brighton Borough Local Plan and in the Second Deposit
Local Plan under policy EM2 ‘sites identified for high tech and office
use’ as part of a ‘Falmer Business Park’.
Given its status as an employment site and the fact that the Structure
Plan identifies a need for additional B1 floor space in the western area
(page 30) and protects allocated land (policy E5) as well as the Local
Plan policy, then normally this application would be automatically
refused.
However, this site’s allocation in the Brighton & Hove Local Plan, as
part of the Falmer Business Park, depends on an access not from the
A27 but via a road linked to the Southern Water access from the A270.
At the time the Local Plan was being prepared, the company was
intending to relocate its entire operations from its site at Falmer and
there was an opportunity to redevelop the area to provide a business
park for industry.
Since 2000, the issue of access has not been resolved because
although the matter has been discussed with Southern Water and it
objected to the proposed designation of the site for employment
purposes, it has neither confirmed that a road could be developed
through the site to serve this area nor firmly rejected the possibility.
If it is clear and proven that the allocation for employment cannot
proceed because of access problems then the major issue to be
addressed re the proposed student accommodation use, is its
appearance in the AONB, attenuation measures to reduce the noise
levels and the access arrangements.
The applicant should be advised that this development would trigger
the % for art policy.
7 PLANNING POLICIES
Brighton Borough Local Plan:
EP.4 - Allocation of site for ‘high tech’(Class B.1) light industrial/business
space
ENV.1 - Ensuring new development does not detract from the
environment
ENV.54 - Development in the AONB
Brighton and Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft:
EM.2 - Allocation of site for ‘high tech’(Class B.1) light
industrial/business space
SU.2 - Efficiency of development in the use of energy, water and
materials
SU.10 - Noise nuisance
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
SU.15 - Waste management
QD.1 - Design- quality of development and design statements.
QD.6 - Public Art
QD.15 - Landscape Design
QD.16 - Trees and hedgerows
QD.17 - Protection and integration of nature conservation features
QD.27 - Protection of amenity
NC.6 - Development in the countryside/ downland
NC.7 - Sussex Downs AONB
East Sussex and Brighton and Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011:
E.5 Safeguarding existing land and premises
E.14 Academic corridor
8 CONSIDERATIONS
There are 3 main considerations in this case. The first is the principle of
using this site, which is allocated for ‘high-tech’ employment use, for
student housing. The second is the effect of the proposals on the
character of the area, which is within the Sussex Downs Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). The third is the effect of the
proposals on the amenities of adjacent neighbours. Also to be
addressed are the effects on highway safety, ecological
considerations and problems of soundproofing the building from road
and rail noise.
The principle of the proposed use
The principle of the proposed use must be the first consideration and,
as set out in 4 above, the site is allocated for development for ‘high
tech’ (Class B.1) light industrial/business space. However, this
allocation was based on the ability to gain access via the A270 and
through the existing Southern Water compound rather than directly
from the A27. The applicant states that the Highways Agency has
stated that no new access should be created onto the A27. Southern
Water has confirmed that they could not provide access through their
land for security and operational reasons. Their former Property
Disposals Manager has also confirmed that the site has been vacant
and available for rent or purchase for 12 years after being declared
surplus to requirements by the company. It is considered that this
period of vacancy and marketing is sufficient to demonstrate that the
site is not suitable for a business use and this is principally due to the
inability to provide vehicular access. The alternative use now
proposed be linked to Sussex University and would provide residential
accommodation, which would benefit the university and release
accommodation in the city for other occupiers. The proposal
overcomes the need for an additional vehicular access as it can be
serviced from the university campus, via the new underpass and the
applicants confirm that this can be achieved. The only requirement for
vehicular access will be to access the limited number of disabled
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
parking spaces (5 indicated on the submitted drawings) and service
vehicles, all of which would access the site from the existing station
access road. It is considered that, as the allocated use cannot be
attracted to the site, the use proposed is acceptable and can
function without adverse effect on traffic movements on the adjacent
A27.
The effect of the proposals on the character of the area
As the site slopes down to the west, the proposed building is 2 and 3
storeys high at the eastern end of the site and 3 and 4 storeys high at
the western end, with a 5 storey element in the middle. There are
some 2 storey dwellings, a chaplaincy and station buildings to the east
of the site and it is considered that the proposed block relates well to,
and does not dominate these smaller buildings. In terms of the wider
landscape and the effects on the AONB, it is considered that there will
not be any significant effect because of the following circumstances.
The site is screened on the south side by a row of mature trees and on
the north side is visible in long views from the Downs across the Sussex
University campus and the A27, with the row of trees as a backdrop.
This part of the AONB is excluded from the proposed National Park
and is earmarked for development anyway, so the principle of
development is acceptable and the form of development is
considered to be interesting and appropriate for this site
The effect of the proposals on the amenities of neighbours
The proposed building is approx. 60m to the west of the 2 storey
Railway Cottages and, because of this distance, the fall in levels and
the flat roofed construction of the proposals it is considered that the
proposed building will not dominate these houses or result in any
undue loss of light or privacy. The car-free nature of the proposals will
ensure that traffic levels generated by the development will not cause
unacceptable levels of vehicular activity. Whilst halls of residence with
up to 450 bed spaces will, inevitably, result in more activity in the area,
this will be largely pedestrian and cycling activity and very little from
motor vehicles. It is considered that the proposals will not have any
significant impact on the residential amenities of the neighbours.
Highway safety
The car-free nature of the proposal is of benefit as the potential for
developing the site has been severely affected by the inability to
secure an acceptable vehicular access to the site. The use proposed
is linked to the Sussex University and is possible only because the site
can be serviced from the campus using the new underpass. However,
the proposal indicates the provision of 5 parking spaces for disabled
drivers and provision for limited vehicular access for refuse collection,
bulky deliveries and emergency vehicles. The University states that
they would service the building via the underpass and this would
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
include the moving in and out of students and their possessions and
cleaning the buildings. The Traffic Manager requests assurances
concerning this and appropriate conditions are recommended.
Ecological considerations
The site has very little ecological value and English Nature have
responded with no comments. The existing mature trees along the
south and west boundaries will not be affected by the development
and are intended to be included in a Tree Preservation Order. The
north boundary is to be treated with an earth bund planted with trees
and shrubs to form a noise barrier and the landscaping associated
with this feature and the rest of the site should enhance the value of
the site for indigenous flora and fauna.
Soundproofing
The site is between the A27 dual carriageway and the Brighton to
Lewes railway line. Noise is therefore an important consideration and
the principle of the scheme has been developed to minimise noise
problems from these sources. The accommodation will be used for
study, as well as sleep, so it is necessary to reduce noise disturbance
during the day as well as the night. For this reason the building has
been designed with its walls at 45 degrees to the road and rail to
deflect the sound. In addition, an earth bund is proposed along the
boundary with the road and this is to be heavily planted to absorb the
road noise. Further sound insulation measures are required.
9 CONCLUSIONS
It is considered that the proposal is appropriate for this site, which has
difficulties of access from the adjacent A27 trunk road. It is not
desirable to significantly increase the volume of traffic using the
present access to Falmer station and it is now evident that it is not
possible to provide an acceptable alternative vehicular access. This
makes the site impractical for the allocated use of ‘hi-tech’ industrial
purposes. The use proposed is connected to Sussex University and so
echoes the ‘academic corridor’ theme of the allocation in the local
plans. It will be serviced from the main campus via the new underpass
and overcomes the concerns of traffic generation that any other use
for the site would have. The bulk of the building is considered
appropriate for this site and a condition to restrict the development to
the arrangement of bulk shown on the submitted drawings is
acceptable to the applicant. Approval is therefore recommended,
subject to the S106 Agreement and the conditions set out above.
10 EQUALITIES IMPLICATIONS
There is to be parking provision for 5 disabled drivers on this site, which
is below the number normally associated with a residential
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
development of this size. However, there is an over-provision of
disabled units and associated parking spaces on the university’s other
residential blocks on the campus and under-provision may be
therefore acceptable here, especially considering the aim of
minimising traffic movements associated with this site.
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
No: BH2004/00794/FP Ward: ROTTINGDEAN COASTAL
Address: 2 Newlands Road
Proposal: Demolition of existing house and erection of part 3-storey, part
2-storey block of 14 no. flats and associated car parking.
Officer: Maria Seale, tel: 292322 Received
Date:
15 March 2004
Con Area: N/A Expiry Date: 11 June 2004
Agent: Turner Associates , 115A Church Road, Hove
Applicant
:
CDC2020, 1 Forest Gate, Tilgate Forest Business Centre, Brighton
Road, Crawley
1 SUMMARY
The application proposes demolition of the existing house and erection
of a block of 14 flats, with 14 car parking spaces. It is an amendment to
a scheme that was withdrawn for a similar development of 14 flats
earlier this year. The building would be of contemporary design and be
part 3-storey, part 2-storeys high. The principle of a higher density
development is considered acceptable on the site, in accordance
with central government and local plan policies which aim to make
effective and efficient use of urban sites. This current amended
scheme is considered to represent a significant improvement upon the
withdrawn scheme. The design, scale and siting of the proposal has
been revised to respect its setting and that of the wider locality, and
overcome concerns regarding impact to the amenity of occupiers of
the adjacent property at 93 Marine Drive. The Traffic Manager raises no
objection to the proposal on highway safety grounds. The proposal is
considered to comply with local plan policies except for policy HO2
relating to affordable housing. This policy seeks 40% of units to be
affordable in schemes of over 10 units, and none are proposed, and
thus this is the sole reason the application is recommended for refusal.
The proposal is identical to BH2004/00793/FP and an appeal against
non-determination has been lodged against this.
2 RECOMMENDATION
Refuse planning permission for the following reason:
1. The proposal does not make any provision of affordable housing
and therefore is contrary to policy HO2 of the Brighton and Hove
Local Plan Second Deposit Draft which states that 40% of residential
units within a scheme of 10 residential units or more shall be
“affordable”, as defined in the Plan.
Informatives:
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
1. This decision is based on amended drawing nos. TA 1093/01 Rev A,
1093/02 Rev A, 1093/03 Rev B, 1093/04 Rev B, 1093/05, 1093/06,
1093/07 Rev A, 1093/08, 1093/09 Rev A, 1093/10 Rev A, 1093/11,
1093/12 Rev A and revised Design Statement and Sustainability
Statement submitted on 19th May 2004.
3 THE SITE
This application is on a site on the north side of Marine Drive at the
junction with Newlands Road. A substantial detached house and
detached double garage currently occupy the site. Access is via a
driveway off Newlands Road, towards the rear of the site. To the west is
the residential development of St Aubyn’s Mead comprising mainly of
two-storey terraced houses set lower than the site. To the east
adjacent to the house is a two-storey detached house set higher than
the site (93 Marine Drive). To the north the garden area of the site is set
substantially lower than the adjacent property to the east (2 Lenham
Road West), and there is a bungalow directly to the north (4 Newlands
Road). To the south is the main A259 coast road and then the land
drops away and there is a public car park beyond towards the
seafront.
4 RELEVANT HISTORY
65/2462 Proposed 5 bedroom house with detached garage. Granted
04/01/66.
BH2002/01815/OA Demolition of double garage and construction of
chalet bungalow and attached double garage (revised proposals to
BH2001/02863/OA refused 06/03/02). Granted 20/12/02.
BH2003/00935/RM Demolition of double garage. Construction of chalet
bungalow with integral garage. (Reserved Matters following Outline
Permission BH2002/01815/FP) Granted 01/05/03.
BH2003/03124/FP Demolition of existing house and erection of part 3-
storey part 2-storey block of 14no. flats and associated car parking.
Withdrawn 25/11/03.
BH2004/00793/FP (an identical duplicate of this current application
BH2004/00794/FP). Appeal lodged against non-determination.
5 THE APPLICATION
The application proposes demolition of the existing house and erection
of a part 3-storey, part 2-storey block of 14 no. flats and associated car
parking. 2 x 1-bedroom flats and 12 x 2-bedroom flats are proposed.
The proposed density is approximately 70 dwellings per hectare. The
design of the proposal is contemporary and is influenced by the Arts
and Crafts movement, with low pitched roofs and a horizontal
emphasis to the façade. A total of 14 car parking spaces are
proposed, including 5 disabled spaces, and cycle parking for 16
cycles. The flats would be served by private balconies, gardens and a
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
communal garden. The applicant has submitted a Design Statement
and Sustainability Statement with the application.
This application is identical to BH2004/00793/FP (see History section
above). It has been amended since originally submitted to include the
following: introduction of windows and panels on the north elevation
facing up Newlands Road to provide more visual interest, a gated
access as advised by Sussex Police, and a more comprehensive
sustainability statement.
6 CONSULTATIONS
External:
Neighbours: Windmill View, St Aubyns Mead Residents Ltd, 5, 9, 10, 11,
12, 13, 14, 15, 20, 22 St Aubyns Mead; 2, 3, 4, 4a, 5, 7, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19,
23, 25, 31, 35, 37, 39, 41, 45, 47 Chailey Avenue; 1a, 2, 2a, 12 Lenham
Road West; 6, 8, 10, 14, 18, 20, 22, 24, 28 Newlands Road; 55, 59, 61, 63,
93, 95, 111 Marine Drive; Flat 3, 4, 9, 11, 14, 15 Marine Court Marine
Drive; 16 Park Road; 7 Romney Road; West View, Green Shutters,
Blenhem House, Stedminds, Rothemoon, Rumneys, Mulberry House,
Strood, Steyning Road; Bridgewood Avenue; 48 Dean Court Road;
Petition of 293 signatures, object to the proposal on the following
grounds:
- Additional traffic on a busy and dangerous bend
- Scale, mass and design out of keeping with existing dwellings and
incompatible with character of neighbourhood and village
- Over-development
- Loss of amenity (light, privacy and outlook)
- Loss of view
- Increased noise and disturbance
- Loss of attractive dwelling of architectural merit
- Noise and disturbance during construction
- No affordable housing is proposed
- Plans are out of date as 2 Lenham Road West is not indicated
- Bin store is potential health hazard
Councillor Mary Mears: Objects on the following grounds:
- Existing building is a prime example of good architecture and won
an award, and adds character, if it meets the criteria it should be
listed.
- Proposal represents over-development of site which is out of
keeping with adjoining properties
- Proposal will increase traffic and worsen the environment on an
already problematic road
- Proposed building line to south and west protrude further than the
existing building line
- Mass of building would be overbearing and completely out of
character
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
- No affordable housing is proposed in the scheme
- Proposal will set a precedent for large detached houses in the
Rottingdean Area being demolished and replaced by blocks of
flats
- Inconvenience during construction
Rottingdean Parish Council: Whilst accepting that the proposals show
considerable improvements in terms of the height of the building, the
Parish Council object to the application on the following grounds:
- the building by virtue of scale, mass and siting would appear
incongruous and unduly prominent to the detriment of the
character and appearance of the approach to a historic
conservation area village.
- It is noted that again 2 Lenham Road West is omitted from the plans
- Provision of two 1-bedroom flats is tokenisitic, will not be affordable
- Concerns regarding traffic implications on a dangerous bend which
is heavily congested
Twentieth Century Society: (comments made at time of previously
withdrawn application BH2003/03124/FP) Objection on grounds that
the house is a good example of a private dwelling of 1969. The building
relates well to the site and it appears to be a distinguished and unusual
building for the area. The Society is unable to make a strong
judgement on whether the building is of listable quality due to
insufficient information.
Sussex Police: The location is a medium risk crime area. The car parking
should be gated with a lockable capability. There should be no free
access to the rear and it is suggested cranking the fencing/railing
adjacent to Newlands Road back to the front building line. All glazing
to the ground floor units should be laminated and the cycle store
adequately secured.
Environment Agency: No objection subject to imposition of conditions
to prevent pollution of the water environment.
Southern Water: The point and details of the proposed connection to
the public sewer will require the formal approval of Southern Water. No
surface water should be discharged to the foul sewer as this could
cause flooding to downstream properties.
Internal:
Conservation & Design: (original scheme) The proposals are re-
submitted following an unsuccessful application, and the application
seeks to address the previous reasons for refusal. The building height
has been reduced and the building line taken back to respect the
surrounding buildings. The general form and massing of the building is
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
now acceptable. The Arts and Craft movement, of which this proposal
aspires to imitate, paid great attention to detail. A statement of how
the proposed external windows, doors and balconies, bricks and type
and colour of weather-boarding fit with the locality and the
architecture should be included.
Traffic Manager: No objection.
Environmental Health: No objection subject to restrictive conditions
regarding sound insulation for habitable rooms and maintenance of
refuse storage.
Private Sector Housing: (original scheme) The layout of some flats is
unsatisfactory as bedrooms must not be entered via a living room or
kitchen. An alternative means of escape will be required for the
bedroom, or alternatively the layout of the flat re-designed. (amended
plans have satisfactorily addressed this).
Housing Strategy: Objection - Policy HO2 of the Second Deposit Draft
Local Plan seeks 40% affordable housing on this site, equating to 6 units,
and none are provided.
Planning Policy: (original scheme) The proposal is for 14 residential units
therefore policy HO2 of the second deposit draft applies this requires
an element of affordable housing. HO2 asks for at least 40% affordable
housing, which equates to 5/6 units. The proposal is contrary in this
respect as no affordable housing units are offered. The applicants state
that the Inspector’s Report on the Local Plan recommends the
threshold for affordable housing be 15 units. The Inspector’s report is
not binding and until the Council has made its formal views known on
such recommendations, the relevant policy for development control
purposes remains HO2 as in the second deposit draft.
Policy HO3 seeks to ensure proposals for new residential development
incorporate a mix of dwelling types and sizes, the current application
has a mix of one and two bed units. However, policy HO3 requires the
mix of dwelling types to reflect Brighton and Hove’s housing needs,
which has been identified as three and four bed units as identified in
the plan. Exceptions will only apply where a scheme has been
designed to meet the needs of people with special needs. It is
considered that the current mix of units would be contrary to policy
HO3. Policy HO13 requires new residential dwellings to be built to
lifetime homes standard no indication has been given by the applicant
that the units will be to lifetime homes standard or wheelchair
accessible and as such would therefore be contrary to policy HO13.
Policy SU2 of the second deposit draft requires developments to
demonstrate how the proposal incorporates measures to reduce fuel
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
use and greenhouse gas emissions, facilitate the use of renewable
energy resources, reduce water consumption, enable the
development to use greywater and rainwater and minimise overall
energy and/or raw materials. In addressing these issues the applicant
has provided a short sustainability statement, however, the statement
provides limited information. (a more comprehensive statement has
since been submitted).
7 PLANNING POLICIES
Brighton Borough Local Plan:
ENV1 – General objectives
ENV3 – Design in the built environment
H2 – Maximising use of urban land
H22 - Needs of disabled residents
D1- People with disabilities
H19 – Provision of private amenity space
TR9 – Highway considerations
TR34 – Provision of cycle parking
Brighton and Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft:
HO2 – Affordable housing
HO3 –Dwelling types and densities
HO4 – Dwelling densities
HO –Provision of private amenity space
HO5 -Provision of outdoor recreation space
HO13 – Accessible housing and lifetime homes
QD1- Design – quality of development
QD2 – Design – key principles for neighbourhoods
QD3 – Design – efficient and effective use of sites
QD4- Design - Strategic impact.
QD7 - Crime prevention through environmental design
QD27 – Protection of amenity
TR1 – Development and the demand for travel
TR – Safe development (new policy)
TR12 – Cycle access and parking
SU2 – Efficiency in development in the use of energy, water and
materials
8 CONSIDERATIONS
The main issues to consider are whether the proposal is sympathetic to
the character and appearance of the locality in terms of scale, siting,
design and materials, whether there is an adverse effect upon
residential amenity, and the impact to on-street parking in the area
and highway safety. Policies also seek, amongst other things, to ensure
that the proposed accommodation incorporates sustainable building
practices and provision for disabled users, and seek to ensure that 40%
of units are affordable.
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
Density and impact to the character and appearance of the locality
Central government advice and local plan policies seek to make
effective and efficient use of land in urban areas to reduce pressure for
development elsewhere and greenfield sites in particular. Higher
density developments will be allowed where schemes exhibit high
standards of design and architecture, the site is well served by public
transport and local services, a mix of dwelling types is provided, and
the area has the capacity to accommodate additional dwellings.
Development should, however, avoid ‘town cramming’ and special
attention should be paid to the design and quality of spaces between
buildings and the general character of the surrounding area.
There is no objection in principle to the redevelopment of the site. It is
on a bus route and has local shops nearby and it is considered that the
surrounding area has the capacity to accommodate 14 additional
dwellings in principle. It is acknowledged that the existing house is of a
unique architectural style, however as it is not listed or located within a
conservation area the Council does not have control over its
demolition. There are no Council records of the architect who
designed the house or of an architectural award, and the
Conservation Officer (commenting at the time of the withdrawn
application) does not consider that the building meets the relevant
criteria to warrant listed status.
The current application represents an amendment to an application
for redevelopment of the site which was withdrawn due to concerns
about, amongst other things, the siting, mass and height of the
proposal, as it was considered that it would have resulted in an overly
dominant structure on the site. Whilst there was no objection regarding
the increase in density on the site in principle, the proposal as then
submitted was considered unacceptable. The current application is
considered to represent a significant improvement upon that original
scheme. The building has been set back substantially (by 4 metres) to
respect existing development along the coastline to the east, which is
relatively consistent in terms of ‘building line’. The building has been set
lower into the site (by up to 1.7 metres) which has decreased the visible
number of storeys, and now the majority of the building would be lower
than the existing dwelling. The building has been arranged and
stepped in height in sympathy with the existing sloping site, and
maintains a sense of space about it and respects its setting. The
distance between the proposal and the eastern boundary with 93
Marine Drive has increased, and the new building would now be
further away from this property than the existing building, which is
considered to respect the existing sense of space of the locality. The
roof overhangs have decreased and the solid balconies replaced with
glazed balconies, and some balconies on the western elevation
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
removed, to overcome concerns regarding the bulky appearance of
the previous scheme.
Whilst the proposal does involve a substantial increase in footprint upon
the existing, the site is large and can accommodate such a scheme
without appearing cramped or incongruous. There are some examples
of other large buildings in the wider vicinity of the site such as Highcliff
Court, St Margaret’s and Kipling Court, and examples of relatively high
density development, e.g. St Aubyns Mead, and other examples of flat
development along the coast. In this seafront location, in an area of
properties of varying scales and architectural styles, away from the
historic village centre, it is considered that a flat development would
not cause demonstrable harm to the character or appearance of the
area. The Council’s Urban Designer considers the general form and
massing of the building to be acceptable. The modernist design
approach takes reference from architectural elements of the existing
house, and the proposed materials are sympathetic, and the scheme
is considered to be of a good architectural standard.
Residential amenity
In terms of the effect on the occupiers of adjoining residential
properties, the proposal is considered acceptable. The proposed
building would be a minimum of 29 metres away from habitable rooms
windows in the nearest property in St Aubyn’s Mead to the west, a
distance which is not uncharacteristic of the area, and sufficient to
avoid loss of privacy and loss of light to residents. The proposed
building would be approximately 19 metres away from the adjoining
property to the north (4 Newlands Road), and the nearest element of
the proposal would be two-storey, which is considered an acceptable
relationship. No.4 is set higher than the site and away from the
common boundary, therefore the impact of the proposed parking
area would be lessened. No. 2 Lenham Road West is located towards
the north-east corner of the site, adjacent to part of the eastern
boundary of the site (although this is not shown on the submitted site
plan). Given that No.2 is set at a substantially higher level than the site
(by approximately 3.5 metres), only partially borders the site and is
some distance from the proposed building, it is not considered that the
proposal would adversely affect their amenity.
Concerns were originally expressed regarding the impact the
withdrawn scheme would have had on the occupiers of the adjoining
property to the east (93 Marine Drive). The proposal originally projected
5 metres further forward than the existing house directly adjacent to
their boundary and would have had an overbearing effect to the
western elevation of that property, resulting in a serious loss of outlook
from existing windows and the front garden of that property. The
building has now been set back substantially to the line of the existing
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
building to address this. It is considered that this, together with the
increased distance between properties and reduction in height of the
building, has satisfactorily addressed previous concerns. The proposal
would maintain a 25 degree angle from windows in the flank elevation
of no.93, and these windows are secondary windows. The proposed
balconies facing south could be partially screened to prevent
overlooking to the east.
Traffic and highway safety
It is noted that a number of objection shave been received on the
basis of increase in traffic using the access and Newlands Road, as this
could result in a highway safety hazard. The Council’s Traffic Engineer,
however, is satisfied that the access, and the junction with Marine
Drive, is more than capable of handling the extra traffic. It is therefore
considered that a refusal on the basis of adverse impact to highway
safety cannot be justified. There is no objection in principle regarding
the number of on-site parking spaces proposed, as the councils
parking standards are maximum rather than minimum in accordance
with Government advice. The proposed disabled spaces are of
sufficient width and the cycle store of sufficient size, to comply with the
aims of policies TR16 and TR12.
Standard and layout of accommodation
The provision of private amenity space in the form of communal
garden space, private gardens and balconies is considered sufficient
to meet the requirements for policies H19 and HO (provision of private
amenity space in residential development). With regard to Policy HO5,
relating to the provision of outdoor recreation space for schemes of 10
or more residential units, the applicant is agreeable to provide a
financial contribution as part of the scheme, and this is thus not
included as a reason for refusal. A mix of 2-bedroom and 1-bedroom
flats is proposed which, on balance, is considered an acceptable mix
in this relatively modest development of 14 units, in line with policy HO3.
Policies H22, D1 and HO13 seek to ensure that proposals make
adequate provision for disabled users of development. Five disabled
car parking spaces are proposed which is considered acceptable. In
accordance with policy HO13, the applicant has agreed to provide
units to a lifetime homes standard, and the policy requires 12% of the
scheme – equating to 2 units, and thus this is not included as a reason
for refusal. This would involve relatively minor internal alterations to the
layout, and the building is already proposed with level access. In
accordance with policy SU2, the applicants have submitted a
Sustainability Statement. This states that the development will: use local
materials, use solar gain by orientating balconies on southern
elevations, reuse construction waste, use natural ventilation, use triple
glazing and provide of refuse/recycling store, amongst other things.
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
The scheme ‘Partially Meets’ the criteria in the Sustainability Checklist.
In accordance with policy QD7, and advice given by Sussex Police,
the amended scheme now incorporates a gated access. The layout of
the amended scheme satisfies concerns of the Council’s Private Sector
Housing team.
Affordable housing
The proposal is considered a windfall development and as such policy
HO2 of the emerging Local Plan applies. This requires developments to
include a provision of 40% affordable housing for schemes which
comprise 10 residential units or more. The proposal is for 14 units
therefore it would be expected that the development should provide 6
affordable units in order to comply with the policy - and none are
proposed. To support their position, the applicants make reference to
the Inspector’s Report on the Local Plan which recommends that the
threshold for affordable housing be 15 units (and 30%). The Inspector’s
report is not binding however, and until the Council has made its
formal views known on such recommendations, the relevant policy for
development control purposes remains HO2 as in the Second Deposit
Draft. The applicant supports the Inspector’s view that that the
provision of 40% on schemes of less than 15 units is not financially
viable; however, it noted that no financial information has been
provided to justify this in the case of this application.
9 CONCLUSIONS
There is no objection in principle to redevelopment of the site for 14
residential units. The design and scale of the proposal is considered
acceptable. There would be no adverse impact to residential amenity
or to highway safety. For the reasons outlined above, however, the
proposal is considered to conflict with the aim of local plan policy HO2
relating to affordable housing provision, and therefore the application
is recommended for refusal.
10 EQUALITIES IMPLICATIONS
The new dwellings would need to comply with part M of the Building
Regulations. Five disabled parking spaces are proposed. The applicant
has agreed to provide wheelchair accessible lifetime homes as part of
the scheme.
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
No: BH2004/00880/FP Ward: WITHDEAN
Address: Land to rear of 8 and 10 Bankside
Proposal: Erection of one detached dwelling. (Re-submission of
Withdrawn application BH2003/03747/FP)
Officer: Hamish Walke, tel: 292101 Received
Date:
01 March 2004
Con Area: N/A Expiry Date: 10 May 2004
Agent: Ms L Flower, Southbank, Newhall Lane, Small Dole, West Sussex
Applicant
:
Mr S Slee, 2 York Court, Nizells Avenue, Hove
This application was deferred for a site visit at the last meeting on 19 May
2004.
1 RECOMMENDATION
Grant Planning Permission subject to the following conditions:
1. Full Planning.
2. 01.01 Samples of materials Reason Add “and in accordance with
policies ENV1 and ENV3 of the Brighton Borough Local Plan and
QD1 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft.”
3. 02.01B No permitted development (extensions) (B).
4. 04.01 Landscaping/planting scheme Reason Add “and in
accordance with policies ENV61 of the Brighton Borough Local
Plan and QD15 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan Second
Deposit Draft.”
5. 04.02 Landscaping/planting (implementation/maintenance)
Reason Add “and in accordance with policies ENV61 of the
Brighton Borough Local Plan and QD15 of the Brighton and Hove
Local Plan Second Deposit Draft.”
6. 04.03 Protection of existing trees Reason Add “and in accordance
with policies ENV61 of the Brighton Borough Local Plan and QD15
of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft.”
7. 06.02B Cycle parking details to be submitted (B).
Informatives:
1. This decision is based on drawing nos. PL/07 and PL/08 submitted
on 1 March 2004.
2. This decision to grant Planning Permission has been taken having
regard to the policies and proposals in the Brighton Borough Local
Plan and the Brighton & Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft set
out below and to all relevant material considerations:
Brighton Borough Local Plan:
ENV1 – General environment policies and objectives
ENV2 – General environment policies and objectives
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
ENV3 – Design in the built environment
ENV61 – Trees and landscaping
H2 – General housing objectives and policies
H19 – Children/open space provision
TR30 – Pedestrians
TR33A – Cycle parking
TR44 – Car parking standards
Brighton and Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft:
TR(new policy) Safe development
TR10 – Helping the independent movement of children
TR12 – Cycle access and parking
TR17 – Parking standards
QD1 – Design – quality of development and design statements
QD2 – Design – key principles for neighbourhoods
QD3 – Design – efficient and effective use of sites
QD4 – Design – strategic impact
QD15 – Landscape design
QD16 – Trees and hedgerows
QD17 – Protection and integration of nature conservation features
QD27 – Protection of amenity
HO3 – Dwelling type and size
HO4 – Dwelling densities, HO(new policy) – Provision of private
amenity space in residential development
2 THE SITE
The application site forms part of the rear gardens of Nos. 8 and 10
Bankside. The site is L shaped, contains a number of mature trees and
fronts Highbank. The site slopes steeply up towards Highbank and
there is a change in levels of approximately 15 metres between
Highbank and Bankside. Two detached houses have recently been
constructed at the rear of Nos. 2-6 Bankside. There are no existing
houses to the west of the application site on the south side of
Highbank. The surrounding area is wholly residential and the site and
neighbouring properties are visible for a considerable distance across
the valley.
3 RELEVANT HISTORY
Land at the rear of 8-10 Bankside
BH2003/03747/FP – Erection of one detached dwelling (Re-submission
of refused application BH2002/01183/FP). Withdrawn 22/01/04.
BH2002/01183/FP – Erection of one detached dwelling. Refused
07/10/02 on grounds of design, cramped appearance, out of
character, overlooking/loss of privacy, pressure to fell existing trees and
setting an undesirable precedent. The subsequent appeal was
dismissed. However, the Inspector concluded that there would be no
overlooking/loss of privacy, no precedent and that there would be no
undue pressure to fell trees. He dismissed the appeal though, stating
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
“… with regard to the plot itself, both it and the proposed dwelling
would be noticeably wider than others in the vicinity, chiefly by virtue
of the large double garage proposed. In my opinion, the width and
scale of the proposed dwelling would be out of scale with the
established pattern of development in the immediate vicinity.”
BH2000/02229/OA – Proposed erection of single detached dwelling
(rear of 8 Bankside). Refused 28/11/00. Subsequent appeal dismissed
9/8/01. The Inspector recognised that it may be physically possible to
place a house on the site, but considered that it would be closer to the
front of the site than typical of the neighbourhood. He felt that the
development would have a cramped feel in comparison with
surrounding development because of this proximity to Highbank and
the need for hardsurfacing in the front garden. Part of the break in
development by trees and vegetation on the south side of Highbank
would be lost. Concern was also expressed about the precedent for
further development along the south side of Highbank. The Inspector
also considered that the proposal would cause significant overlooking
of the lower house and its back garden and did not feel that this
problem could be overcome at the detailed design stage. He did not
consider that the proposal would lead to permanent traffic problems
providing a garage and parking space were provided.
89/1149/F – Erection of two detached three-storey houses having single
storey frontage to Highbank with integral garages (rear of No’s 8 and
10 Bankside). Refused 16/8/89. Subsequent appeal dismissed 8/8/90.
The Inspector noted that the character of the area was formed by
mainly semi-detached houses with generous gardens. He also
recognised the agreeable openness resulting from development on
one side of the road only. The proposal would reduce this openness
and appear incongruous by standing in isolation from adjoining
development. The proposed houses would be visible against a
backdrop of gardens of Bankside properties and would be detrimental
to the appearance of this part of Westdene. The Inspector considered
that three storey development would have an unacceptable
overbearing impact upon properties in Bankside and cause
overlooking to these properties.
Land at the rear of 2 Bankside and adjacent to 9 Highbank
BH2001/01055/FP – Erection of three bedroom detached house.
Granted 03/09/02.
96/0132/FP – Amendments to BN90/1840/F – approved 18/3/96 (for a
further 5 years).
BN90/1840/F – Erection of three bedroom detached house with
integral garage. Refused 7/1/91. Appeal allowed 26/11/91. The
Inspector considered the house would be seen to have a close
relationship with No. 9 Highbank and houses to the east. He felt that
because of the low eaves level to Highbank the house would not harm
the open character of the area. He also felt that, due to vegetation
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
on adjoining sites and subject to new planting, no unacceptable
impact on the vegetated setting of the area would result. The
Inspector considered that houses in Highbank have views over the
roofs of houses below. He also felt that Bankside houses views were
into the slope at the rear of their properties, rather than upwards to
Highbank. He did not consider that the proposal would give rise to
overlooking or loss of privacy. Concluded that the proposal was
acceptable but that landscaping would be important to maintain the
setting of houses in Highbank.
88/23/08/F – Erection of three-storey detached dwellinghouse with
integral garage. Refused 10/1/89.
Land at the rear of Nos. 4 and 6 Bankside
BH2000/00280/RM - Re-submission of BH1999/02299/RM – Reserved
matters application pursuant to outline Planning Permission
BH1998/02164/OA for the erection of a detached dwelling. Granted
16/03/00.
BH1999/02299/RM – Reserved Matters application pursuant to outline
Planning Permission BH1998/02164/OA for erection of detached
dwelling. Refused 6/12/99.
BH1998/02164/OA – Proposed detached dwelling with garage
(resubmission of BH1998/01258/OA). Granted 6/1/99.
BH1998/01258/OA – Erection of split level bungalow. Refused 13/8/98.
87/2242/OA – Outline application for the erection of a detached
house and garage fronting Highbank (rear of 4 and 6 Bankside).
Withdrawn.
4 THE APPLICATION
Planning permission is sought for the erection of a detached four
bedroom house. The house would have a single storey appearance
fronting Highbank but, by virtue of the sloping site, would form two
storeys with rooms in the roof when viewed from Bankside. A parking
area is proposed to the west of the house.
5 CONSULTATIONS
External:
Neighbours: Letters of objection have been received from Nos. 12, 18,
20, 22, 44, 52 and 62 Highbank. The grounds of objection are:
The proposal would be cramped and overdevelopment. It would be
out of character with the openness of the area. The recently built
houses are already out of character. When the original houses were
built, Highbank was only considered suitable for houses on one side
only and it is narrower than adjoining roads. The dwelling would be too
close to Highbank. The proposal has no reference to design of existing
houses.
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
There would be a loss of views from houses on the north side of
Highbank across the application site. Proposal would cause
overlooking and loss of privacy. There would be a loss of trees
adversely affecting the character of the area. The street is narrow and
there is a lack of parking. Highbank is heavily used by schoolchildren
and there is no footpath on the south side. Proposal would cause
increased traffic/congestion and worsen highway and pedestrian
safety. Would cause problems for access for other road users and
emergency vehicles.
Would set a precedent for further developments. Nothing has
changed from the previous refusals. Other recent development has
caused noise and disturbance.
Cllr Ann Norman: (Full letter attached to this report) Previous similar
applications were opposed by local residents, although two
subsequently received approval. Understood that after the first,
BH1998/02164/OA, no further development of land to the west could
be permitted, because of the steep nature of the area and without
causing detriment to the amenities of adjoining properties. The
second, BH2000/02229/OA, was agreed because the site lay an
existing property and the one approved.
This is yet another re-submission of the original Application. Highbank is
narrow and predominantly has houses on one side only. Previous
permissions have caused significant overcrowding and loss of amenity
to residents.
The road’s narrowness causes parking problems. The road is often
impassable and vehicles frequently have to reverse over a
considerable length, causing a hazard both to pedestrians and other
motorists alike.
Approval of this application will only exacerbate severe problems
caused by previous approvals. There is no pavement on this side of
Highbank and, due to the narrow road, no way to address this.
Application for planning permission on this site has been refused on
previous occasions because of the nature of the site, decisions that
have subsequently been upheld by the Planning Inspectorate.
Internal:
Traffic Manager: The parking area is too small to allow vehicles to turn
around. This will result in vehicles reversing either onto or off the
highway which may prove hazardous. There is no provision for secure,
undercover cycle parking. It is also noted that there is no footway on
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
this side of the road at this point which may endanger pedestrian
access. Not the best of applications but traffic issues are not sufficient
reason to refuse it on their own.
Arboriculturist: No objections.
6 PLANNING POLICIES
Brighton Borough Local Plan
ENV1 – General environment policies and objectives
ENV2 – General environment policies and objectives
ENV3 – Design in the built environment
ENV61 – Trees and landscaping
H2 – General housing objectives and policies
H19 – Children/open space provision
TR30 – Pedestrians
TR33A – Cycle parking
TR44 – Car parking standards
Brighton and Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft
TR(new policy) Safe development
TR10 – Helping the independent movement of children
TR12 – Cycle access and parking
TR17 – Parking standards
QD1 – Design – quality of development and design statements
QD2 – Design – key principles for neighbourhoods
QD3 – Design – efficient and effective use of sites
QD4 – Design – strategic impact
QD15 – Landscape design
QD16 – Trees and hedgerows
QD17 – Protection and integration of nature conservation features
QD27 – Protection of amenity
HO3 – Dwelling type and size
HO4 – Dwelling densities
HO(new policy) – Provision of private amenity space in residential
development
7 CONSIDERATIONS
The main issues for consideration are the design of the proposed house
and its impact on the character of the surrounding area, impact upon
neighbouring properties, impact on trees and other vegetation and
traffic/parking issues.
Character of the surrounding area
This part of Westdene is characterised by steeply sloping land, long
distance views and semi-detached houses with generous gardens. The
original development in both Bankside and Highbank comprised semi-
detached houses with long roofslopes and wide dormers. Whilst these
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
houses are modest in design, they give a strong domestic and uniform
character to the area. The roads were both designed to follow the
contours of the valley and are currently separated by many mature
trees in the rear gardens of Bankside properties.
The proposed plot would have a width greater than the adjoining
properties and almost equal to the width of two semi-detached houses
on the opposite side of the road. However, the actual house has been
reduced in width from the scheme dismissed on appeal
(BH2002/01183/FP) and is now 8.3 metres wide. This width is
comparable with neighbouring houses in Highbank and Bankside. This
addresses the sole reason given by the Inspector for dismissing the
recent appeal.
Officers have negotiated design amendments to the previously
withdrawn scheme. From Highbank, the proposal will have the
appearance of a bungalow with a small front gable. This reflects the
design of the newly constructed adjoining house at the rear of Nos. 4-6
Bankside and helps to provide some uniformity of design in this row of
new dwellings.
From the south, the proposal forms a three storey house. It is visible in
long views across the valley. At present, as a result of their design and
materials, the newly constructed dwellings adjoining are visually
intrusive and clearly out of keeping with their surroundings. The
proposal can do nothing to address this. However, the current
proposal incorporates tile hanging and a large rear dormer, which are
both characteristic of houses on the north side of Highbank. The
amendments to the design have created a scheme more in keeping
with its surroundings. The revised design is considered satisfactory given
other recent adjoining development and appeal decisions.
The precedent argument was not supported by the recent appeal
decision and officers do not consider refusal could be sustained on
that basis.
Overlooking and loss of privacy
Inspectors have been inconsistent in their views on overlooking along
this part of Highbank. The Inspector for the appeal at the rear of No. 8
Bankside (BH2000/02229/OA) stated that due to the sloping site and
proximity of the proposed house to No. 8 Bankside ‘there would be
significant overlooking of the lower house and its back garden.’ The
Inspector for the more recent appeal (BH2002/01183/FP) on the current
site did not agree and considered that the change in levels and
intervening vegetation between the application site and houses in
Bankside addressed the concerns of previous Inspectors about
overlooking.
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
The current detailed plans show a distance of 22.6 metres. There
would be windows to principal rooms on three floors facing down the
slope to No. 8 Bankside. The bottom of the ground floor window would
be level with the ridge on the Bankside houses. Given the most recent
appeal decision, it is not felt that refusal could be sustained on the
grounds of overlooking.
The properties to the north side of Highbank are at a higher level. The
relationship across the public highway would be typical of a residential
area and, if anything the higher properties to the north would overlook
the proposed development. Refusal could not be sustained on the
grounds of impact on the properties to the north.
Trees and vegetation
The application site currently contains a number of trees that are visible
both from Highbank, Bankside and in views from longer distances
across the valley. The application drawings show many of the larger
trees to be retained, which would provide some screening value for
properties in Bankside against overlooking. These trees would be
situated within 10-12 metres of the rear wall of the proposed house and
would obstruct views from the house across the valley. There would
probably be pressure from occupants of the house to remove the trees
in order to improve views from principal rooms facing south. However,
the Council’s Arboriculturist does not consider that the site is worthy of
a Tree Preservation Order. The previous appeal Inspector did not feel
that there would be undue pressure to fell trees and it is not considered
therefore that refusal could be sustained on this basis.
Traffic and parking
Highbank is a relatively narrow road. Houses to the north have
driveways and garages, as do the new houses to the rear of Nos. 2-6
Bankside. Two car parking spaces are proposed for the application
site. This provision would meet the Council’s parking standards. The
Traffic Manager has raised some concerns about access, cycle
parking and pedestrian safety, although he does not recommend
refusal. Neither the current proposal nor its recently constructed
neighbours incorporate a public footpath along the frontage. This
inadequacy of provision, if continued along the south side of
Highbank, could have pedestrian safety implications. However, the
recent appeal decision did not support this as a reason for refusal and,
as a result, officers do not consider that it warrants refusal of the current
proposal. Cycle parking can be secured by condition. Manoeuvring
onto/off the site is not ideal, but is similar to the situation at other
Highbank houses and again does not warrant refusal.
Conclusion:
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
Officers do not consider the proposal to be a particularly high quality
scheme, in terms of design, traffic/parking/highway safety or
relationship to adjoining houses. Officers also consider the recent
appeal decision to be a poor one, failing to give adequate support to
concerns expressed by the Council and objectors. Despite this,
considerable weight must be given to this recent appeal decision and,
as a result, officers do not consider that a refusal could be successfully
defended on appeal. Approval is therefore recommended.
8 EQUALITIES IMPLICATIONS
The proposed house would be located on a very steeply sloping site,
making full access for people with mobility difficulties difficult, although
Part M of the Building Regulations would apply.
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
No: BH2004/01235/FP Ward: WITHDEAN
Address: Waterhall Playing Fields, Waterhall Valley
Proposal: Construction of synthetic turf training area (120 metres by 70
metres) with five metre high ball retention fencing and
floodlighting. Provision of floodlighting for an existing grass
pitch.
Officer: Hamish Walke, tel: 292101 Received
Date:
19 April 2004
Con Area: Area of Outstanding
Natural Beauty
Expiry Date: 14 June 2004
Agent: Charles Lawrence Surfaces Plc, Brunel House, Jessop Way,
Newark
Applicant
:
Brighton Rugby Club, Waterhall Playing Fields
This application is to be the subject of a Sub-Committee site visit.
1 RECOMMENDATION
Minded to Grant Planning Permission subject to the receipt of
satisfactory further information and revised details and subject to the
following conditions:
1. 01.01 Full Planning Permission.
2. 06.02B Cycle parking details to be submitted (B).
3. Prior to the commencement of development, a scheme to provide
appropriate mitigation for adverse impact upon nature
conservation and visual amenity of the Sussex Downs Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty/proposed South Downs National Park
resulting from the pitch, floodlighting and fencing hereby
approved shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented and
maintained in strict accordance with the agreed details to the
satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interests of nature conservation and visual amenity
of the Sussex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty/proposed
South Downs National Park and in accordance with policies S1,
EN2, EN17 and EN20 of the East Sussex and Brighton and Hove
Structure Plan 1991-2011, ENV1, ENV3, ENV54 and ENV55 of the
Brighton Borough Local Plan and QD1, QD2, QD4, QD15, QD17,
NC6 and NC7 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan Second Deposit
Draft.
4. Prior to the commencement of development, full details of the
paint/colour of the floodlights and columns hereby approved shall
be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. The scheme shall be implemented in strict accordance
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
with the agreed details.
Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the Sussex Downs
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty/proposed South Downs
National Park and in accordance with policies S1 and EN2 of the
East Sussex and Brighton and Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011, ENV1,
ENV3 and ENV54 of the Brighton Borough Local Plan and QD1,
QD2, QD26, NC6 and NC7 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan
Second Deposit Draft.
5. Prior to the floodlights hereby approved being brought into use,
the floodlights shall be tested and adjusted to minimise light
spillage, impact upon surrounding dwellings and the A27 and
impact upon the Sussex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural
Beauty/proposed South Downs National Park to the satisfaction of
the Local Planning Authority. The lights shall be maintained in the
approved position thereafter to the satisfaction of the Local
Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interests of residential amenity, highway safety,
nature conservation and visual amenity of the Sussex Downs Area
of Outstanding Natural Beauty/proposed South Downs National
Park and in accordance with policies S1, EN2 and EN14 of the East
Sussex and Brighton and Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011, ENV1,
ENV3 and ENV54 of the Brighton Borough Local Plan and QD1,
QD2, QD26, NC6 and NC7 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan
Second Deposit Draft.
6. The floodlights lighting the existing grass pitch on the lower plateau
to the east of the synthetic pitch hereby approved shall only be
used for the illumination of the pitch during rugby training and
matches and for no other purpose.
Reason: To ensure that the floodlighting replaces an existing
facility, does not result in an intensification in use of the pitch and in
the interests of residential amenity, nature conservation and the
visual amenity of the Sussex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural
Beauty/proposed South Downs National Park and in accordance
with policies S1, EN2 and EN14 of the East Sussex and Brighton and
Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011, ENV1, ENV3, ENV44, ENV45, ENV54
and ENV55 of the Brighton Borough Plan and SU9, QD2, QD26,
QD27, NC6, NC7 and NC8 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan
Second Deposit Draft.
7. The floodlights hereby approved shall only be used between the
hours of 14.00 and 22.00.
Reason: In the interests of residential amenity, nature conservation
and the visual amenity of the Sussex Downs Area of Outstanding
Natural Beauty/proposed South Downs National Park and in
accordance with policies S1, EN2 and EN14 of the East Sussex and
Brighton and Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011, ENV1, ENV3, ENV44,
ENV45, ENV54 and ENV55 of the Brighton Borough Plan and SU9,
QD2, QD26, QD27, NC6, NC7 and NC8 of the Brighton and Hove
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
Local Plan Second Deposit Draft.
8. Prior to the commencement of development, full details, including
colour, of the fencing hereby approved shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme
shall be implemented in strict accordance with the agreed details.
Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the Sussex Downs
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty/proposed South Downs
National Park and in accordance with policies S1 and EN2 of the
East Sussex and Brighton and Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011, ENV1
and ENV3 of the Brighton Borough Local Plan and QD1 and QD2 of
the Brighton and Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft.
9. 04.01 Landscaping/planting scheme.
Reason: Add “and in accordance with policies S1 and EN2 of the
East Sussex and Brighton and Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011, ENV54
and ENV61 of the Brighton Borough Local Plan and QD15, NC6,
NC7 and NC8 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan Second Deposit
Draft.”
10. 04.02 Landscaping/planting (implementation/maintenance).
Reason: Add “and in accordance with policies S1 and EN2 of the
East Sussex and Brighton and Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011, ENV54
and ENV61 of the Brighton Borough Local Plan and QD15, NC6,
NC7 and NC8 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan Second Deposit
Draft.”
Informatives:
1. This decision is based on drawing nos. CL/S/04/15937/02 Revision C
and CL/S/04/15937/03, Environmental Policy, Recycling brochure,
Brighton RFC Full Pitch 200 Lux MatchLighting document, Brighton
RFC Synthetic Surface Plan and Brighton Rugby Club Development
Plan 2004-2007 submitted on 19 April 2004 and Brighton Football
Club (R.F.U.) Limited letter and photograph of proposed floodlights
submitted on 22 April 2004.
2. This decision to grant Planning Permission has been taken having
regard to the policies and proposals in the East Sussex and Brighton
& Hove Structure Plan, the Brighton Borough Local Plan and the
Brighton & Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft set out below,
and to all relevant material considerations:
Brighton Borough Local Plan:
ENV1 – General environment objectives and policies
ENV2 – General environment objectives and policies
ENV3 – Design in the built environment, ENV44 – Pollution control
ENV45 – Pollution control
ENV55 – Wildlife conservation
ENV58 – Open Space/Natural Habitats
ENV61 – Trees and landscaping
TR9 – Relationship to development
TR33 – Cycle parking
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
TR44 – Car parking standards
T29 – Leisure and recreation – formal outdoor facilities
TP14 – Leisure and recreation – formal outdoor facilities
Brighton and Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft:
TR1 – Development and the demand for travel
TR12 – Cycle access and parking
TR17 – Parking standards
SU2 – Efficiency of development in the use of energy, water and
materials
SU9 – Pollution and nuisance control
QD2 – Design – key principles for neighbourhoods
QD4 – Design – strategic impact
QD15 – Landscape design
QD26 – Floodlighting, QD27 – Protection of amenity
QD28 – Planning obligations
SR19(b) – Smaller scale sporting and recreational facilities
SR22 – Protection of public and private outdoor recreation space
NC4 – Sites of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCIs) and
Regionally Important Geological Sites (RIGS)
NC5 – Urban Fringe
NC7 – Sussex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
East Sussex and Brighton and Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011:
S1 – Twenty One Criteria for the 21st Century
EN2 – Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB)
EN3 – Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB)
EN7 – Urban Fringe Areas
EN9 – Extensive and Noisy Activities in the Countryside
EN14 – Light Pollution
LT1 – Leisure and Tourism
LT2 – Leisure and Tourism
LT11 – Sporting Facilities and Activities
LT13 – Sporting Facilities and Activities
2 THE SITE
The majority of the application site comprises grass sports pitches.
There is a two-storey clubhouse to the west of the site and a car
parking area to the south. The main user is Brighton Rugby Club who
have three existing pitches within the site (Pitches 1-3 on attached site
plan). Pitches 1 and 2 are floodlit. Brighton Buccaneers Baseball Club
also use part of the site. The baseball pitch (Pitch B) is enclosed by two
metre high fencing. To the east of the site are a number of other sports
pitches, including a further rugby pitch (Pitch 4), on a plateau
approximately 3-4 metres lower than the main rugby club site. There is
a parking area and changing facilities/toilets adjacent to the lower
plateau.
The site lies within the Sussex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
Beauty and within the proposed South Downs National Park. The site is
surrounded by a proposed Site of Nature Conservation Importance.
The site lies at the bottom of a valley, with surrounding land sloping
upwards to the south, west and north. There are a number of public
footpaths across and around the site.
Vehicular access to the site is taken from Mill Road (under the A27) and
the access road runs along the southern boundary of the Waterhall
site. There are two existing residential cottages to the south-east of the
Rugby Club site. The A27 runs immediately to the south of the site.
Waterhall Golf Course lies to the west and south.
3 RELEVANT HISTORY
BH2004/00281/FP – Construction of synthetic turf training pitch (120
metres by 70 metres) with ball retention fencing and floodlighting.
Withdrawn 20/04/04. The proposed pitch was located at the northern
end of the Rugby Club’s site (north of Pitches B and 3 on the site plan).
BH2000/02569/FP – Erection of 3 no. individual additional floodlights to
illuminate training pitch. Granted 10/01/01 subject to conditions
covering painting lighting columns, testing lights to avoid light spillage,
use for rugby training and matches only and limiting hours of use to
14.00-22.00 hours only. The three additional lighting columns were
located to the east of the Rugby Club’s second pitch and have been
installed.
BH1999/00290/FP – Install seating on grass bank to form spectators
terrace. Terrace to be constructed from timber sleepers and concrete.
Granted 17/03/99. The terrace related to the existing baseball pitch at
Waterhall.
BN89/0667 – Regulation 5 application for the erection of a 2 storey
clubhouse to serve adjoining rugby and cricket pitches together with
access roadway, car parking and floodlighting and landscaping works.
Granted 11/08/89 with no conditions to regulate the use of the
floodlights.
4 THE APPLICATION
Planning permission is sought to install an artificial pitch measuring 120
metres by 70 metres on the site of the Rugby Club’s existing Pitch 2. The
pitch would be surrounded by five metre high fencing and would have
six floodlighting columns of fifteen metres in height. Permission is also
sought for three floodlighting columns along the east side of the
adjoining grass pitch to the north (Pitch 3), which is not currently lit.
Permission is also sought to install lighting units on the three proposed
columns to the east of Pitch 2 to floodlight the adjoining Pitch 4 on the
lower plateau. The applicants are also seeking the reinstatement of a
grass pitch at the northern end of the Rugby Club site, although
planning permission is not required.
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
5 CONSULTATIONS
External:
Neighbours:
Letters of objection have been received from Patcham Windmill and
Mill House (both Windmill Drive), Brigden House (Patcham Pumping
Station, Mill Road), Nos. 130 Cuckmere Avenue, 170 Dyke Road, 35
Elizabeth Avenue, 26 Green Ridge, 30 Larkfield Way, 34 Millcroft, 8 Old
Court Close and 3 Ridgeside Avenue. The grounds of objection are:
Proposal would damage an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty by
covering a large area with synthetic turf. There should be no
development north of the bypass and within the proposed National
Park. The existing site gives an attractive first impression of the city.
Precedent for further development north of the bypass, including
possible spectator seating and the development of a rugby stadium.
Visual impact of the number of floodlights and five metre high fence is
unacceptable. Balls could easily be retrieved without a fence.
Unacceptable change to the character of the area.
Loss of amenity for users of Waterhall. People that look after the area
may be driven away. Concerned about impact on wildlife in the
adjacent conservation area. Will drive away wildlife, which includes
glow-worms, bats, owls and nightingales. Friends of Waterhall have
spent considerable time/effort planting trees/downland plants,
creating pond, enhancing site and encouraging return of wildlife. A
badger tunnel was installed under the bypass to allow access to
Waterhall.
Unacceptable increase in floodlighting and impact upon two existing
cottages. Existing lights are not used most evenings. Area is illuminated
when the existing floodlights are used. Negative impact upon quality
of life for residents. Floodlights would discourage glow-worms which
have only just returned to the site. Light pollution is supposed to be
controlled so the people can view the night sky from areas such as this.
Mill Road floodlighting for the football park and ride already causes
disturbance.
Considerable increase in noise and disturbance. Number of vehicles
and increased vehicle use would be unmanageable. Inadequate
parking and access road. Will lead to future demands to increase car
parking. The site contains a major aquifer, which supplies the city and
could be affected by car related pollution.
The facilities, such as drains and sewage, are unable to cope with
current use. No improvements are proposed. Current problems would
be exacerbated. The scale of the project has not been reduced.
Insufficient toilet and washing facilities.
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
The pitch should be located at an existing school/college, such as
Dorothy Stringer/Varndean.
A letter of support has been received from Conifers, Sweethill. The
letter states that the proposal will help promote sport to varied age
groups, including youths. The main complaints raised seem to be
about parking and drainage. Usually only two or three pitches are
used and there is no difficulty parking within 250 yards of the
clubhouse. There is a fault with the drainage system and a health
hazard to users of the site. If repair is uneconomic, septic tanks could
be installed.
Sussex Downs Conservation Board: “As you will be aware, I objected to
the original application on the basis of the detrimental impact of the
proposed pitch on the character of the area given its nature and the
sensitivity and vulnerability of its location, which forms part of the urban
fringe of the city, the visual impact of the artificial surface, fencing and
floodlights (particularly when lit), the potential effect on nature
conservation and the unsustainability of locating facilities such as these
out of the built up area.
Following our subsequent meeting with representatives of the Club,
your colleagues and my colleague, Sue Forsyth, I wrote setting out the
points I made at the meeting. I explained that I did not anticipate that
any package of mitigation and compensatory measures would be
sufficient for me to accept the proposed pitch at the northern end,
and that such a package would need to be substantial for me to
consider the pitch in the middle. Effectively, therefore, only if it was to
be relocated to the southern end would I be prepared to reconsider
my objection.
I am pleased, therefore, that the Club is now proposing the artificial
training pitch at the southern end, which I consider to be an
acceptable location. Whilst I would prefer not to see a replacement
pitch provided at the northern end, because of the visual impact of
the posts, I believe that you indicated that such a pitch would not
need permission as this area had previously been used as such. I
therefore raise no objection to these two elements of the proposals,
nor to the creation and use of a temporary additional pitch on the
lower plateau.
However, I am concerned about the proposed relocation of three
floodlights to the eastern side of Pitch 3. In my opinion, these will
represent an extension of the more prominent built features on these
playing fields northwards away from the present concentration at the
southern end, and they would be clearly visible from the viewpoint on
the Devils Dyke Road to the west.
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
Currently, the Club has two floodlit pitches, but with these proposals
there would be four, with Pitch 3 and the placement of floodlighting on
the new columns of the artificial pitch to face eastwards and light the
pitch on the lower plateau. I presume these would light the existing
pitch, shown on the submitted plans, and would therefore be a
permanent feature. If so, I do not see the need for the lighting of Pitch
3, other than simply to use surplus floodlights. I do not see the need to
floodlight four pitches, or even, in fact, three, given that the proposed
development would still provide one floodlit match pitch and one
floodlit training pitch.
At the meeting, your colleague explained the inefficiency of the
existing lighting, but I see no indication of any intention to address this
issue. If the existing lighting could be altered or replaced so as to
reduce light glare and spillage, then I would not raise any objection to
the proposed lighting of the (permanent) pitch on the lower plateau
with such efficient lighting. However, I would and do object to the
proposed relocation of the existing floodlights to Pitch 3.
Whilst I note and welcome the indicated opening up of the facility as a
gateway to the Downs, I am not at all clear exactly what the Club has
in mind. In addition, I am disappointed that not more of the mitigation
and compensation measures discussed at the meeting appear to
have been included with the revised proposals. For example, it was
suggested that the proposed ball retention fence could be reduced in
height, but this amendment has not been incorporated.
There is also no indication of any intention to undertake any
landscaping works and/or to provide for the enhancement of the
nature conservation value of the complex. Whilst I feel that perhaps
some of these works should be provided by the City Council as site
owner, I also consider it reasonable to seek such measures as
mitigation and compensation for the visual harm that would be
caused by the proposed artificial pitch and associated works, even at
the southern end.
Accordingly, whilst recognising the improvement to these proposals, I
feel that I must maintain an objection to the application as it stands on
the basis of the visual impact of the three lighting columns to be
relocated to Pitch 3, the level of the proposed increase in overall
lighting and the consequent effect on the character of this area.
I would also like to see additional mitigation and compensation, and
the Board would be pleased to work with the Club and the Council on
such measures, including landscaping (based on the Board's
Shoreham-Hove-Brighton Urban Fringe Landscape Study (endorsed by
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
the former Hove Borough Council), nature conservation enhancement
and the use of the facility as a gateway to the Downs.
If the Club is willing to revise its proposals further, I would be equally
willing to reconsider my position. I would like to think that we could
reach a point where we are all reasonably happy with this
development. If the Council is minded to approve this application, with
or without the Board's objections being overcome, I would wish to see
the permission subject to conditions and/or a legal agreement
regarding landscaping, the finish of the proposed fence and lighting
columns/lights, hours of use (particularly cut-off time for the lighting)
and such other mitigation and compensation measures as can be
achieved, including and specifying the use of the facility as a gateway
to the Downs.
If your authority wishes to determine this application at variance with
the Board's views, the Board would not wish to exercise its right to be
heard under the Development Control Scheme”.
Friends of Waterhall: The developers have not produced a visual
impact assessment to demonstrate no adverse impact upon the
character of the AONB. Inappropriate in this AONB/proposed National
Park location. There are already nine sets of floodlights with glow
visible from Mill Road. Proposal will increase this to fifteen columns and
greatly increase area affected by artificial light. This will destroy natural
darkness and cause further light pollution.
Existing parking arrangements are inadequate for 75 vehicles and 4
minibuses. The Rugby Club intend to hold conferences and other
functions in the clubhouse requiring service vehicle access. Existing
safety hazards from weekend congestion. Emergency services are
unable to gain access.
Wastewater and sewage infrastructure is failing. Water/sewage
overflows into the car park. Proposal will increase this problem.
Additional lights will adversely affect mammals and insects, particularly
nocturnal animals such as badgers and bats. Death of glow-worms will
result. Disruption to roosting and nesting birds will result. Owls will leave
their feeding grounds and nightingales will stop singing.
Site is a raised plateau about five metres above the floor of Waterhall
valley and surrounding countryside. This will be the first visual focal
point when approaching the SNCI. It would be an eyesore visible from
all directions.
There are possible future implications of extensive road widening,
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
additional car parking and extension to clubhouse to provide
changing facilities and services.
Campaign to Protect Rural England: Object on the grounds of further
intrusion into the tranquillity of the area. Installation of floodlighting and
use most evening through the winter months will have a serious impact
on nocturnal wildlife in the area. The application breaches the
Council’s view that there would be no development north of the A27.
The Council resisted the development of a football stadium here and it
would be illogical to allow this development now. School playing fields
should be preserved and these could be used by the Rugby Club.
Friends of Brunswick Square and Terrace: It would appear that some of
the environmental matters have been reconsidered by the applicant.
However, the documents are extremely light on environmental details
and concentrate on additional sporting facilities. Object to the
application unless the Sub-Committee can apply a condition
prohibiting closures of existing playing fields by establishments that
would use the planned Waterhall facilities. Application may still raise
significant environmental issues from being within an Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty with important and threatened wildlife.
Would object to the application if it affected the habitats of badgers,
bats and glow-worms within the AONB or proposed National Park.
Sport England: Commented on a similar application in February and
had/have no objections.
Sport England seeks to ensure that there is an adequate supply of
quality pitches to satisfy the current and estimated future demand for
sports pitches within the area. The policy seeks to protect all parts of
the playing field from development, not just those laid out as pitches.
The current proposal shows an artificial pitch to be located on an
existing grass training pitch, with the grass pitch resited north of the
baseball pitch.
The proposal meets one of Sport England’s criteria for allowing
development on a playing field, which is that “The proposed
development is for an indoor or outdoor sports facility, the provision of
which would be of sufficient benefit to the development of sport as to
outweigh the detriment caused by the loss of the playing field or
playing fields.”
Sussex Police: The location is a medium risk crime area. Support the
use of a weld mesh fence. The size of the mesh should be too small to
put a foot through. The gates should be hung so that they cannot be
lifted off or climbed under. The lighting columns should be two metres
from the fence to prevent use to scale the fence. Adequate
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
protection must be given to services to the facility.
Internal:
Planning Policy:
A summary of their comments is as follows:-
“This proposal is contrary to policies NC5, NC6, NC7 and SR19(b) due to
the lack of public transport, good pedestrian and cycle links and the
impact on the environment. However, this proposal does have a
number of material considerations that need to be taken into account.
For example, the existing facilities at Waterhall are well used by the
wider community and this proposal will help to benefit a greater
number of people and will help the City meet Government objectives.
The site’s location within the Countryside may also help to act as a
stepping stone to the wider countryside. It is felt each element of this
proposal needs to be considered individually e.g. benefits of the
synthetic pitch to the community without floodlighting and fencing
etc. For example does the fencing greatly increase the number of
people using the pitch during an average week or could this element
be removed in order to help minimise the impacts on the environment.
Regard should be given to the impact upon the funding of the
proposal.
This proposal will have a negative impact on the environment and
whilst it may be argued it has been sited to help minimise this impact it
does not try to provide any compensation, which is contrary to the
objectives of policies NC4 (i and iv), NC5, NC6 (second and last para’s)
and NC7 (vii and x). It is felt compensatory measures should be
considered. Especially when this proposal will be increasing very
obvious artificial features within the countryside e.g. floodlighting,
fencing and synthetic turf, which can not really be ‘naturalised’; it is felt
compensatory measures would therefore help to ‘balance’ this
proposal’s impact. It is felt reasonable to consider the provision of
compensatory measures not just within the site’s boundary due to the
wider impact of this proposal on the countryside and AONB”.
Ecologist:
“The main changes from the previous application are:
1. The proposed synthetic pitch (with floodlighting) is now located
directly east of the pavilion, approximately 100m south of its
previously proposed location and on a site which is currently floodlit
(Pitch 2).
2. Some additional floodlighting is proposed for a 3rd pitch (Pitch 3),
north of the location of the proposed synthetic pitch, but south of
the original proposed location of the synthetic pitch, by moving
three of the existing lighting columns from Pitch 2.
As discussed in comments on the previous application
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
(BH2004/00281/FP), the ecological effects are difficult to quantify. A
key concern is light pollution. It became apparent at the meeting with
the applicant, that the existing floodlighting on Pitch 2 is of poor quality
and likely to cause much higher levels of light pollution than the Philips
MVP 507 'Optivision' lighting proposed for the artificial training pitch.
Light pollution caused by the proposed ATP would therefore probably
be much less than is currently occurring on Pitch 2. However, remains
concerned about the proposal to move the existing lighting from Pitch
2 to Pitch 3, closer to the Site of Nature Conservation Interest.
Recommends that a condition is applied to any permission permitting
the existing lighting columns at Pitch 2 to be moved to Pitch 3, but
stipulating that the lighting units they support be replaced by Philips
MVP 507 'Optivision' lighting, fitted with UV filters, in order to minimise
the potential for light pollution affects on wildlife.
(Comments on previous application) Site is bordered by three Sites of
Nature Conservation Importance (SNCIs), defined by the Brighton
Wildlife Strategy 1992 and protected by the Brighton Borough Plan
1995. These SNCIs have been consolidated into a single proposed Site
of Nature Conservation Importance (pSNCI) in the emerging plan and
are protected by policy NC4. The site is outside the built-up area
boundary and within the Sussex Downs AONB.
Potential Effects on Ecology
Adjacent areas are already used for organised sport and are floodlit.
The nature conservation effects of this proposal are likely to be related
to intensification of the existing use of this part of the playing fields.
These are:
- Increased levels of light, both in terms of intensity and duration.
- Increased levels of human activity and associated noise,
particularly after dark.
Both issues are of concern at this sensitive location. As well as
disturbance due to noise, artificial lighting in particular has been
blamed for general disruptions to daily activity cycles, and reductions
in dispersal, foraging, and reproductive opportunities of nocturnal
species such as badgers, bats and owls. However it has proved
extremely difficult to demonstrate clear cause-and-effect relationships
between a particular light source and populations of these species.
Artificial light affects night-flying moths by disrupting moth navigation
and suppressing flight. It also interferes with mating, dispersal, and
migration, disturbs feeding, oviposition, nocturnal vision and, possibly,
circadian rhythms, and increases predation. However, many species of
moth thrive near urban and suburban lighting and extinctions due
exclusively to artificial lighting have not been documented. Not aware
of any published research which has established a clear relationship
between declining moth populations and increased light pollution.
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
Glow-worms are recorded from the area. It is believed that artificial
light prevents male glow-worms from locating females. The larvae and
eggs also glow faintly, which has been shown to warn predators of
their unpalatability. As well as preventing mating, artificial lights may
also reduce this larval defence mechanism. However I have
investigated this further with a national glow-worm expert and can
confirm that to date there is no conclusive evidence demonstrating a
relationship between glow-worm populations and light pollution. In the
context of this application it should also be remembered that glow-
worm larvae are dormant during winter (when the proposed
floodlighting would have greatest affect). During the glow-worm
breeding period (June, July) it naturally remains light until 9pm and
therefore any affect on glow-worm breeding from the proposed
floodlighting is likely to be minimal”.
Conclusions and Discussion
This proposal is likely to have effects on adjacent wildlife within the
SNCIs/pSNCI, but it is not possible to quantify these prior to
implementation. This is partly because of the lack of available research
about the effects of noise and light pollution on wildlife and partly
because the application does not quantify how these factors will
change. However the ‘precautionary principle’, advocated by
Government, suggests that these potential effects on the adjacent
SNCIs should be taken into account.
Indirect effects on SNCIs are not addressed by Policy ENV55, which
only relates to the direct effects of development of SNCIs. However the
current wording of Policy NC4 refers to the setting of pSNCIs and
presumes against both direct and indirect adverse impacts on their
nature conservation features. Recently the weight which should be
attached to these terms has been called into doubt following the
publication of the Local Plan Inspector’s Report, which states:
“As to the wording of the policy, the text in the Second Deposit
Draft does seem to me unduly onerous, given that this kind of
non-statutory site sits lowest in the nature conservation
hierarchy. I find no strong reason to include development within
the setting of a SNCI as a factor that could justify withholding of
planning permission. . . The words “..likely to have an adverse
impact, directly or indirectly, on the nature conservation
features of the site..” also strike me as excessively controlling;”
(paragraph 8.19).
Cannot comment authoritatively on all the possible effects of policies
NC5, NC6 and NC7 on this proposal. However NC 6 states that
‘Proposals should have no adverse effects on, and where appropriate
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
enhance and expand, nature conservation features.’ The final
paragraph of the same policy also requires applications in the
countryside to be accompanied by ‘a detailed written design
statement’ showing how the proposal integrates with nature
conservation. No such statement has been submitted in this case.
Similarly NC7 states that ‘particular attention’ will be paid to noise
disturbance, light pollution and integration of nature conservation
features in determining applications within the AONB.
Remains concerned about the development context of this proposal
and whether it marks a stage in wider plans for further ‘urbanisation’ of
this sensitive area. The proposals appear to indicate a marked increase
in pitch use and this may logically require additional car parking, etc,
which has not been addressed in this application.
These comments do not attempt to assess this application from a
landscape viewpoint. The views of a qualified landscape architect
should be sought in this respect.
Lighting Engineer: The new lighting for the artificial pitch will be an
improvement as the calculation results indicate a reduction in light spill.
This is likely to be perceived as a significant improvement on the
impact on the neighbouring cottages. However, no indication of
proposed floodlight aiming has been provided for the three resited
columns for the third pitch. If any permission had provision that these
lights should be aimed following agreement with the council's lighting
engineer, this would be acceptable.
Traffic Manager: No objections on traffic grounds.
Environmental Health: No observations.
6 PLANNING POLICIES
Brighton Borough Local Plan:
ENV1 – General environment objectives and policies
ENV2 – General environment objectives and policies
ENV3 – Design in the built environment
ENV44 – Pollution control
ENV45 – Pollution control
ENV54 -
ENV55 – Wildlife conservation
ENV58 – Open Space/Natural Habitats
ENV61 – Trees and landscaping
TR9 – Relationship to development
TR33 – Cycle parking
TR44 – Car parking standards
T29 – Leisure and recreation – formal outdoor facilities
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
TP14 – Leisure and recreation – formal outdoor facilities
Brighton and Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft:
TR1 – Development and the demand for travel
TR12 – Cycle access and parking
TR17 – Parking standards
SU2 – Efficiency of development in the use of energy, water and
materials
SU9 – Pollution and nuisance control
QD2 – Design – key principles for neighbourhoods
QD4 – Design – strategic impact
QD15 – Landscape design
QD26 – Floodlighting
QD27 – Protection of amenity
QD28 – Planning obligations
SR19(b) – Smaller scale sporting and recreational facilities
SR22 – Protection of public and private outdoor recreation space
NC4 – Sites of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCIs) and Regionally
Important Geological Sites (RIGS)
NC5 – Urban Fringe
NC6 – Development in the countryside/downland
NC7 – Sussex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
East Sussex and Brighton and Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011:
S1 – Twenty One Criteria for the 21st Century
EN2 – Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB)
EN3 – Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB)
EN7 – Urban Fringe Areas
EN9 – Extensive and Noisy Activities in the Countryside
EN14 – Light Pollution
LT1 – Leisure and Tourism
LT2 – Leisure and Tourism
LT11 – Sporting Facilities and Activities
LT13 – Sporting Facilities and Activities
7 CONSIDERATIONS
The main issues for consideration are the sporting implications, visual
impact of the proposal, taking account of the Sussex Downs AONB and
the proposed South Downs National Park, the impact upon residential
amenity, impact upon nature conservation interests, sustainability and
traffic/car parking.
Sports issues
The artificial pitch would replace an existing grass pitch. Although
national and local policies seek to avoid the loss of grass sports pitches,
in this case the artificial pitch would continue sporting use and would
be able to be used more intensively. Sport England have raised no
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
objection. There is an area to the north of the Rugby Club site on
which a replacement grass pitch could be located.
The proposed artificial pitch would be available for use by the Rugby
Club (145 senior members and 300 youth players), Baseball Club (65
members) and by approximately 40,000 schoolchildren for sports/PE
provision. The existing pitches are also used by Withdean 200 FC,
Brighton and Hove Albion Girls and Women’s FC, Old Brightonians RFC
and Sussex Police RFC.
The application includes a Development Plan 2004-07. This sets out
intentions to increase rugby opportunities for underrepresented groups,
such as females and those living in disadvantaged areas, and to
develop coaching skills. The pitch would also be used extensively for
football.
Funding for the proposed pitch would be provided by the Rugby
Football Union and the Football Foundation. The grant scheme is
specifically intended to widen participation in sports in accordance
with national and local initiatives. The pitch would help to meet the
City Council’s community sports programmes (Youth, Over 50’s, Black
and Ethnic Minorities, Women and Disability Sport). Policies LT11 of the
East Sussex and Brighton and Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011, T29 of the
Brighton Borough Local Plan and SR19(b) of the Brighton and Hove
Local Plan Second Deposit Draft all support additional sporting
facilities.
There are important sporting and health benefits associated with the
proposal. As well as developing rugby provision, the pitch will allow
sports participation across all age groups, help school sport and help
improve the population’s general health. These benefits should be
given considerable weight in determining this planning application.
Permission is also sought for additional floodlighting to two adjoining
grass pitches. As the artificial pitch would involve the loss of an existing
grass pitch with floodlighting, it is considered reasonable for the Rugby
Club to illuminate another grass pitch. Given visual and nature
conservation issues set out below though, it is not considered
appropriate that a further pitch should also be illuminated and the
applicants have been asked to delete proposed floodlighting to Pitch
3.
Visual impact
The site lies within a sensitive location north of the A27 and within the
Sussex Downs AONB and proposed South Downs National Park. The
proposed pitch, floodlights and fencing would introduce alien and
urban features into views across the site. The visual impact of the
proposal upon the landscape is undoubtedly negative. However, the
Waterhall site is clearly an urban fringe rather than countryside site. It
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
already contains a large number of intensively maintained sports
pitches, some floodlighting and fencing, access road and parking
areas, two substantial sports related buildings and two houses. Apart
from its openness, it has few, if any, countryside/downland
characteristics. Also, due to the sloping land to the north, west and
south and the proposed location on the valley bottom, the site is well
concealed in long distance views. Whilst the visual impact of the
proposal would be negative, it is not considered that this harm
generates an overwhelming reason for refusal.
Six floodlighting columns are proposed around the artificial pitch. The
columns would be slim and would replace the existing bulkier lighting
columns around Pitch 2. The applicant has been requested to delete
proposed relocated/replacement columns on Pitch 3 to the north.
Assuming this is agreed, the visual impact of the proposed lighting
columns would be less than the impact of the existing columns.
The proposed 5 metre high fencing would be welded mesh. It would
provide security to prevent unauthorised access to the pitch and
vandalism. It would also help with ball retention. The applicants have
been asked to consider the possibility of lowering the fence to reduce
its visual impact. However, the principle of a fence is considered
acceptable for security and ball retention reasons. Full details,
including colour can be secured by condition.
The proposed floodlighting also has implications for night-time visual
impact. As noted above, there are existing floodlights and these are
used on a regular basis. The Lighting Engineer comments that the
existing lights are dated and of poor quality by modern standards. As
a result, light spillage is currently unsatisfactory. However, the Lighting
Engineer is satisfied that the proposal would result in lower levels of light
spillage and as such have less adverse visual impact than the existing
situation.
The current permission allows the existing floodlights to be used from
14.00-22.00 hours. It is recommended that an identical restriction on
hours of use is applied to the current proposal. This would allow
reasonable evening use of the proposed pitch whilst ensuring visual
impact and impact upon wildlife was limited.
The proposal specifies that the adjacent pitch on the lower plateau
and the adjoining pitch to the north of the proposed artificial pitch
would also be lit. Currently two rugby pitches are floodlit. It is
considered reasonable for the club to seek to illuminate another grass
pitch to replace the one forming the site of the proposed artificial
pitch. However, an increase to light a further pitch is not considered
acceptable. As stated above, the club have been asked to delete
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
the proposed floodlighting to pitch 3.
Due to the artificial surface, fencing and floodlights, the proposal
would have an adverse impact upon the AONB/proposed National
Park. The site does lies at the southern end of an intensively managed
area and adjacent to the A27. A landscaping condition is
recommended to ensure that vegetation is planted to screen the pitch
as far as possible.
Nature conservation
As well as its landscape designation, the Waterhall area has
recognised wildlife and nature conservation interest. The Council’s
Ecologist has provided detailed comments on this proposal. Whilst
recognising concerns, particularly relating to glow-worms, he does not
feel that refusal can be sustained on nature conservation grounds. The
artificial pitch has been relocated from the location shown in the
earlier application. It is now a significant distance from the Rugby
Club’s northern boundary with the proposed SNCI.
The applicants have indicated a willingness to allow use of the
clubhouse for educational and conservation use. Further details are
required but, in principle, it is considered that this would help mitigate
any negative conservation impact by giving schoolchildren access to
the countryside and raising awareness of nature conservation.
Contributions to nature conservation enhancements could also be
sought as part of a scheme to mitigate adverse impact. In conclusion,
subject to appropriate mitigation which can be secured by condition,
it is not considered refusal could be sustained on the grounds of
impact upon nature conservation.
Residential amenity
The proposed pitch would be 100 metres from the two cottages on the
Waterhall site. The lighting columns, pitch and fencing would be visible
from the cottages. However, at a distance of 100 metres and in a
location where residents can already view nine floodlighting columns,
rugby posts and the clubhouse, it is not considered that significant
adverse visual impact would result.
The floodlights for the artificial pitch would be in the same position as
existing floodlights, although the columns would light both Pitch 2
(which is currently lit) and Pitch 4 (which is not lit). The Lighting Engineer
is satisfied that the lighting system proposed is of considerably higher
quality than the existing lights and would result in less light spillage. As
a result, it is considered that the impact of the lighting upon the
cottages is likely to decrease rather than increase. Some glow from
the lights may be visible from the wider residential area to the south,
but this situation exists at present and the proposed lighting is likely to
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
lead to a reduction in light spillage. It is not considered that significant
adverse impact upon residential amenity would result from the
proposal.
Traffic and parking
The Traffic Manager has raised no objection to the proposal. There is
ample parking on the Waterhall site to cater for all users of the
proposed pitch at times when the other pitches are not being
intensively used. The Rugby Club car park holds 75 vehicles. The
Waterhall site does not have good public transport access. However, it
is already an intensively used area for sports and it is considered
unreasonable to expect significant public transport improvement as a
result of this proposal.
In weekday daylight hours, the pitch would be predominantly used by
schoolchildren, who would arrive by bus. This use can easily be
accommodated within the site. The pitch would be also used on
weekday evenings. For the majority of the year, floodlighting would be
required for evening use. This precludes the use of more than three
pitches on the Waterhall site and limits the related traffic/parking
requirements. Again, this level of vehicular traffic can easily be
accommodated within the site.
The main concern would therefore be weekend daytime use when the
other pitches are also in use. It is clear from objections received, that
the Waterhall parking areas and access road are in high demand
during periods when the sports pitches are in heavy use. At those
times, parking problems do exist. However, Waterhall is a self
contained area, has no through access and the problems would only
affect users of the site. It is not considered that the proposed pitch,
which would replace an existing pitch, would significantly add to the
congestion and refusal would be difficult to sustain on this basis.
Cycle parking details can be secured by condition.
Sustainability
Charles Lawrence International, who would construct the proposed
artificial pitch, have submitted documents setting out their
Environmental Policy and their use of recycled materials. The
Environmental Policy states that, where possible, sustainable sources
are used. The company are involved in recycling vehicle tyres for use
in their products and have confirmed that recycled glass, rubber and
stone would be used in the proposed pitch.
Outstanding issues
The applicant has been asked to delete the proposed floodlighting
with relocated columns for Pitch 3. Further information and
clarification has also been requested from the applicant on a number
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
of issues including height of the proposed fencing, security concerns
expressed by Sussex Police, landscaping and other nature
conservation mitigation measures, drainage/sewage problems and
possible location elsewhere within the city. Any response will be
reported prior to or at the Sub-Committee meeting.
Conclusion:
There are substantial sporting and health benefits to be gained from
the proposed artificial pitch. As set out above though, there are also
likely to be negative impacts upon the AONB/National Park and upon
wildlife and nature conservation interest. Whilst these cannot be wholly
eliminated, it is considered on balance that, subject to appropriate
mitigation, the sporting benefits of the proposal on this already
intensively managed urban fringe site outweigh the disadvantages in
landscape and conservation terms.
8 EQUALITIES IMPLICATIONS
The proposed pitch will help encourage sporting activities across all
age groups and sections of the community. The artificial pitch would
also be available for disabled sporting provision and is suitable for
wheelchairs.
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
No: BH2004/00914/FP Ward: WITHDEAN
Address: 5 Wayland Heights
Proposal: Construction of a 5-bedroom 2-storey detached dwelling.
Officer: Andy Watt, tel: 292525 Received
Date:
08 March 2004
Con Area: N/A Expiry Date: 19 May 2004
Agent: N/A
Applicant
:
Mr N Spring-Benyon, 5 Wayland Heights
This application was deferred for a site visit from the Sub-Committee meeting
held on 19 May 2004.
1 RECOMMENDATION
Grant Planning Permission subject to the following conditions:
1. 01.01 Full Planning Permission.
2. 02.01B No permitted development (extensions) (B).
3. 02.02B No permitted development (windows) (B).
4. 02.06B Satisfactory refuse storage (B).
5. 03.01B Samples of Materials Non-Cons Area (B).
6. 06.02B Cycle parking details to be submitted (B).
7. 04.01 – Landscaping/planting scheme [please add: ‘The
landscaping scheme shall also include some tree planting to
counter the loss of other trees within the site].
Reason: Standard – add ‘and to comply with Policies ENV.60 and
ENV.61 of the Brighton Borough Local Plan and Policy QD16 of the
Brighton & Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft’.
8. 04.02 – Landscaping/planting (implementation/maintenance)
Reason: Standard – add ‘and to comply with Policies ENV.60 and
ENV.61 of the Brighton Borough Local Plan and Policy QD16 of the
Brighton & Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft’.
9. The 1.8 metre high acoustic fence on the north-east boundary of
the access road, as shown on the submitted plans, shall be
erected prior to the occupation of the proposed dwelling and shall
be thereafter maintained.
Reason: In the interests of the amenities of neighbouring occupiers,
to comply with Policy ENV.1 of the Brighton Borough Local Plan
and Policy QD27 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan Second Deposit
Draft.
10. No development, including the erection of site offices, shall take
place until an arboricultural method statement has been
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority.
Reason: To enhance the appearance of the development in the
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
interest of the visual amenities of the area, to comply with Policies
ENV.60 and ENV.61 of the Brighton Borough Local Plan and Policy
QD16 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft.
11. The erection of fencing in accordance with BS:5837-1991 for the
protection of the four trees on the eastern boundary of 5 Wayland
Heights shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved
arboricultural method statement before any equipment,
machinery or materials are brought on to the site for the purposes
of the development, and shall be maintained until all equipment,
machinery and surplus materials have been removed from the site.
Nothing shall be stored or placed in any area fenced in
accordance with this condition and the ground levels within those
areas shall not be altered, nor shall any excavation be made,
without the written consent of the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To protect the trees which are to be retained on the site
and to comply with Policies ENV.60 and ENV.61 of the Brighton
Borough Local Plan and Policy QD16 of the Brighton & Hove Local
Plan Second Deposit Draft.
12. No works or development shall take place until full details of the
access driveway specification has been submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure that adequate access to the site for pedestrians
and vehicles is provided, to comply with Policy TR Safe
Development (new policy) of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan
Second Deposit Draft.
13. No other works shall take place on site until the construction of the
approved access drive, or a temporary vehicle access in
accordance with BS5837-1991, has been undertaken.
Reason: To ensure that adequate access to the site for
construction works, pedestrians and vehicles is provided, and to
comply with Policy TR Safe Development (new policy) of the
Brighton & Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft.
Informatives:
1. This decision is based on drawing nos. 01P and 02P submitted on 8
March 2004.
2. This decision to grant Planning Permission has been taken having
regard to the policies and proposals in the Brighton Borough Local
Plan and Brighton & Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft set out
below, and to all relevant material considerations, including
Supplementary Planning Guidance:
Brighton Borough Local Plan:
ENV.1 – General objectives and policies
ENV.2 – General objectives and policies
ENV.3 – Design in the built environment
ENV.60 – Trees and landscaping
ENV.61 – Trees and landscaping
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
H.2 – Housing – general policies and objectives
H.19 – Children/open space provision
TR.33 – Cycling
Brighton & Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft:
TR1 – Development and the demand for travel
TR – Safe development (new policy)
TR12 – Cycle access and parking
TR17 – Parking standards
SU2 – Efficiency of development in the use of energy, water and
materials
QD1 – Design – quality of development and design statements
QD2 – Design – key principles for neighbourhoods
QD3 – Design – efficient and effective use of sites
QD4 – Design – strategic impact
QD5 – Design – street frontages
QD16 – Trees and hedgerows
QD27 – Protection of amenity
HO3 – Dwelling type and size
HO4 – Dwelling densities
HO – Provision of private amenity space in residential development
(new policy)
Planning Policy Guidance Note 3: Housing
Planning Policy Guidance Note 13: Transport
Supplementary Planning Guidance Note BH4: Parking Standards
3. The applicant is advised that, as construction access will require
the pruning of the Cedars that overhang the access road – which
are subject to Tree Preservation Orders, formal consent will be
required. Please contact David Archer (01273 293003) for further
details.
4. The applicant is reminded of the legal obligations regarding
protected species under the provisions of the Wildlife &
Countryside Act 1981 (as amended by the Countryside & Rights of
Way Act 2000) and the Protection of Badgers Act 1992. All
vegetation should be cleared by hand and any observations of
such species should result in the immediate cessation of work and
forwarding of such information to English Nature. Please contact
Matthew Thomas (01273 292371) for further information.
2 THE SITE
The application site comprises a backland plot at the rear (south-east)
of 5 Wayland Heights, formerly part of the rear garden of 46 Dyke Road
Avenue and backing on to 63-67 Wayland Avenue. Wayland Heights
is a modern cul-de-sac of 5 properties located on steeply sloping land
between Wayland Avenue (on lower ground to the east) and Dyke
Road Avenue (on higher ground to the west). The site is 29 metres long
and 24 metres wide, to be accessed via a 24 metre long access strip.
It is currently overgrown with some fruit trees and lies immediately
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
adjacent to four trees subject to Tree Preservation Orders including two
Cedars, an Irish Yew and a Purple-leafed plum.
3 RELEVANT HISTORY
BN85/5F: Erection of 5 no. detached bungalows, 1 no. detached
chalet bungalow and construction of estate road – granted 5 March
1985.
87/318F: Erection of detached bungalow with integral double garage
and ancillary works (amendment to proposals approved under
BN85/5F) – granted 14 April 1987.
90/113F: Erection of 5 bungalows and 1 chalet bungalow and
construction of estate road (renewal of planning approval BN85/5F,
including details of access road and landscaping) – granted 10 April
1990.
91/1133/FP: Erection of 2 bungalows on plots 5 and 6 – granted 26
November 1991.
97/146: Erection of 3 chalet bungalows on plots 2, 3 and 4 – granted 20
May 1997.
BH1998/00471/OA: Erection of 2 storey chalet style dwelling with
integral double garage [land to rear of 46 Dyke Road Avenue] –
refused 13 May 1998.
BH1998/00473/FP: Erection of 2 storey chalet style dwelling with integral
double garage [land to rear of 46 Dyke Road Avenue] – refused 5
August 1998; allowed on appeal 9 June 1999.
4 THE APPLICATION
The applicant seeks consent for an L-shaped chalet bungalow 12.7m
wide and 14.3m deep at its longest point. It comprises five bedrooms,
primarily overlooking the rear garden, and an integral double garage.
The proposal is accessed via a 24 metre long and 3 metre wide access
road located at the rear of properties on Wayland Avenue and under
the canopies of existing protected trees which lie within the curtilage
of 5 Wayland Heights. In order to overcome noise nuisance from the
access road a 1.8 metre high acoustic fence is proposed by the
applicant along the length of the road on the north-east boundary.
The proposal is a re-submission of a currently unimplemented proposal,
granted on appeal in June 1999, and the purpose of the application is
to renew this consent, still extant until 9 June this year. One
fundamental change has been made to the original scheme,
however, and that is the positioning of the dwelling. Initially the
proposal sited the building 2 metres from the house at Plot 2 (now 5
Wayland Heights) and 2.5 metres from the boundary with 46 Dyke
Road Avenue. In August 1999, after the appeal was allowed, the
council agreed that the repositioning of the dwelling 5 metres from 5
Wayland Heights could be treated as a minor amendment to the
permission granted on appeal.
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
The proposal now under consideration seeks consent for the dwelling
to be sited 5 metres from 5 Wayland Heights but 5.4 metres from the
boundary with 46 Dyke Road Avenue.
5 CONSULTATIONS
External:
Neighbours:
8 letters of objection to the proposal have been received from
occupiers of 44 and 46 Dyke Road Avenue; 59, 63, 65 and 67 Wayland
Avenue; and 2 and 4 Wayland Heights on the following grounds:
- Proposal is for a chalet style bungalow, not a bungalow, making
the dwelling unsuitable for the site on account of its size and
appearance
- It will lead to overshadowing, overlooking and loss of privacy
- Removal of tree located in proposed access road is objectionable
- Applicant initially objected to the original proposal
- Proposal is not affordable
- It will result in noise, disturbance and pollution
- Believes that as the application is purely to suit the owner of
number 5, this substantial two-storey property should be sited
nearer to number 5, with the majority of the windows sited on the
north-west elevation
- Loss of habitat for foxes and other wildlife
- Traffic hazard and congestion, and
- Difficulties for emergency vehicles to attend the development.
Internal:
Arboriculturalist: Have no real problems with this site - including as it
does the removal of a Beech - but would like to see the
proposals/method statement for the protection of the root systems of
the retained trees, including the Cedars and Yew located in the
adjacent property. Any protection measures must comply with B. S.
5837. The landscape scheme should also include some tree planting
to ameliorate the loss of the Beech and other small trees within the site.
Please draw to the attention of the applicant that construction access
will require the pruning of the Cedars that overhang the access road
and that these trees are subject to a T.P.O. requiring formal consent
and agreed specification. We will not look kindly on 'ad-hoc' pruning
to these trees.
Traffic Manager: No objections.
6 PLANNING POLICIES
Brighton Borough Local Plan:
ENV.1 – General objectives and policies
ENV.2 – General objectives and policies
ENV.3 – Design in the built environment
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
ENV.60 – Trees and landscaping
ENV.61 – Trees and landscaping
H.2 – Housing – general policies and objectives
H.19 – Children/open space provision
TR.33 – Cycling
Brighton & Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft:
TR1 – Development and the demand for travel
TR – Safe development (new policy)
TR12 – Cycle access and parking
TR17 – Parking standards
SU2 – Efficiency of development in the use of energy, water and
materials
QD1 – Design – quality of development and design statements
QD2 – Design – key principles for neighbourhoods
QD3 – Design – efficient and effective use of sites
QD4 – Design – strategic impact
QD5 – Design – street frontages
QD16 – Trees and hedgerows
QD27 – Protection of amenity
HO3 – Dwelling type and size
HO4 – Dwelling densities
HO – Provision of private amenity space in residential development
(new policy)
Planning Policy Guidance Note 3: Housing
Planning Policy Guidance Note 13: Transport
Supplementary Planning Guidance Note BH4: Parking Standards
7 CONSIDERATIONS
Impact on visual amenities of the area:
Given a similarity in design between the existing chalet bungalows at
the head of this cul-de-sac and the proposed dwelling, it is not
considered in principle that the scheme will look out of place in the
locality. The applicant intends for the materials of the building to
match those of the adjacent property, 5 Wayland Heights, and this
aspect of development is sought through condition.
Impact on neighbouring amenity:
The proposal is for a backland form of development and, as such,
impacts on neighbouring occupiers in terms of overlooking and
overshadowing can be accentuated.
The principle of allowing a dwelling of this footprint and design on this
plot of land has been established on appeal, and re-siting it further to
the south-east was approved as a minor amendment. Now that the
proposal is to reposition the dwelling a further 2.9 metres to the north-
west (closer to properties on Wayland Avenue), the impact on these
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
properties must be assessed first and foremost.
Sections through the site towards 65 Wayland Avenue (submitted with
the previous scheme) indicate there will be no loss of lighting to
properties on Wayland Avenue. Furthermore, the distances between
the windows and existing properties are a minimum of 20 metres (to 61
Wayland Avenue). This should not lead to a significant loss of privacy.
Properties on Dyke Road Avenue are sited in the region of 45 metres
from the proposed dwelling. This is considered adequate spacing
between buildings, even in this area of fairly low density housing, for
there not to be any significant overlooking caused.
The property at 5 Wayland Heights adjacent to the site, although
owned by the applicant, will be affected by the proposal but in a
more benign way than previously approved. There are two doors on
the south-east elevation of this property, one to the garage and one to
the utility room, and two windows – one for the kitchen and one for the
utility room. Given the nature of these rooms (non-habitable for the
purposes of applying the Building Research Establishment standards
and assessing impact for daylight calculations), there is in any case
adequate distance between the two buildings now for there to be no
significant loss of light to these rooms. Moreover, the proposed
dwelling will lie at a lower level than the existing one.
One of the reasons the outline application was refused was due to
noise and nuisance caused to the residents of Wayland Avenue who
currently enjoy a degree of quiet in their back gardens. The council
was satisfied at the time that this could be overcome via the
introduction of an acoustic fence along the boundary with the new
access road and associated planting. The same fence has been
proposed and a condition is imposed to effect its construction prior to
occupation of the dwelling and associated maintenance thereafter.
In view of concerns about the enlargement of the proposed dwelling,
it is considered expedient to impose conditions removing permitted
development rights for the erection of extensions and installation of
any further windows on this property. It should be noted that the
Inspector, on allowing the appeal in 1999, considered that these
conditions should not be imposed, but the justification in this instance is
the fact that the proposed property has been positioned closer to
existing dwellings on Wayland Avenue, where such minor
developments could be harmful.
Effect of proposal on amenity and functioning of area:
Two car parking spaces are provided on-site in an integral double
garage. There is sufficient turning space to allow vehicles to enter and
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
leave the site in a forward gear. The Traffic Manager raises no
objection to the proposal (which includes details on visibility splays),
but the council would wish to be satisfied with the details of the
scheme in respect of the access road during construction and
conditions are imposed to this effect.
No facilities for cycle parking are proposed and so a condition is
imposed requiring submission of details for their provision.
Refuse storage facilities are not shown on the submitted plans, and in
accordance with current plan policies, a condition is recommended to
make adequate provision for this.
Private amenity space is provided as part of this proposal, in line with
plan policies.
The trees on the site and within the curtilage of 5 Wayland Heights will
be affected by this proposal, but subject to the conditions above – as
issued by the Planning Inspectorate – they should be satisfactorily
protected throughout construction works and thereafter. Furthermore,
it is reasonable to request through condition further tree planting on
site to counter the loss of existing trees to make way for the proposed
dwelling.
Conclusion:
The application is fundamentally similar to that allowed on appeal and
subsequently amended as a minor amendment. The impact on
neighbouring properties is not considered significantly more harmful
and so approval is recommended.
8 EQUALITIES IMPLICATIONS
Part M of the Building Regulations will apply.
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
LIST OF MINOR APPLICATIONS
No: BH2004/00456/FP Ward: BRUNSWICK AND ADELAIDE
Address: Garden Flat, 1 Selborne House, 6 Selborne Road
Proposal: Construction of a garden summerhouse to rear garden.
Officer: Nicola Slater, tel: 292114 Received
Date:
27 January 2004
Con Area: WILLETT ESTATE Expiry Date: 06 April 2004
Agent: N/A
Applicant
:
Lowri Marno, Garden Flat 1, Selborne House, 6 Selborne Road
1 RECOMMENDATION
Refuse planning permission for the following reason:
1. The proposed summerhouse and shed would fail to preserve and
enhance the character and appearance of the Willett Estate
Conservation Area by reason of its excessive size, bulk and
materials. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies BE1 and BE8
of the Hove Borough Local Plan and QD1, QD2, QD14, QD27 and
HE6 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft.’
Informatives:
1. This decision is based on drawings and photographs submitted on
27 January 2004 and the additional information submitted on 20
May 2004.
2 THE SITE
The application relates to the rear garden of a lower ground floor flat
positioned on the west side of Selborne Road approximately 90 metres
north of the junction with Church Road. The property is located in the
Willett Estate Conservation Area.
3 RELEVANT HISTORY
Planning permission was granted in October 1988 (ref: 3/88/0776) for
recovering the roof with grey interlocking tiles.
4 THE APPLICATION
Planning permission is sought for the construction of a summerhouse in
the rear garden. The summerhouse would have a width of 2.89 metres,
a length of 6.4 metres and a height of 3.25 metres at the highest point
and 2.35 metres at the lowest point. Decking is proposed to the front
and north side of the structure. The structure will be wooden with pine
feather edged cladding and metal roofing material coloured dark
green. A distance of 1.67 metres separates the summerhouse with the
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
boundary to the north and 1.29 metres separates the summerhouse
with the boundary to the south.
5 CONSULTATIONS
External:
Neighbours: Two letters of objection have been received from the
occupiers of the Garden Flat, 8 Selborne Road and the Ground Floor
Flat, 8 Selborne Road raising the following points:
- the structure will be clearly visible over the top of the boundary wall
and will block out the sun from the south for most of the day;
- the Ground Floor Flat owns the rear half of the garden of no. 8
Selborne Road and the structure will cast a shadow over the small
garden;
- other sheds and gazebos in the vicinity are much more of a modest
size;
- the structure would be imposing in the green oasis which currently
exists in the rear gardens;
- the users of the summer house would be able to overlook the
occupiers in neighbouring properties;
- the summerhouse would restrict views.
Two letters of support were received with the application from the
occupiers of the Ground Floor Flat, 6 Selborne Road and an occupier in
a property to the rear along Salisbury Road raising the following points:
- the summer house will be a great addition to the garden
- the summer house will blend in with its surroundings
6 PLANNING POLICIES
Hove Borough Local Plan:
BE1 - General Development
BE8 - Development in Conservation Areas
Brighton and Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft:
QD1 - Development Design
QD2 - Neighbourhood Design
QD14 - Extensions and Alterations
QD27 - Protection of Amenity
HE6 - Development within Conservation Areas
7 CONSIDERATIONS
The determining issues in this application relate to whether the
proposed summer house would have a detrimental impact on
neighbouring properties and whether the proposal preserves and
enhances the appearance and character of the Willett Estate
Conservation Area in which the property is located.
Impact on amenity of neighbouring occupiers:
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
The proposed summer house will have a width of 2.89 metres, a length
of 6.4 metres and a height of 3.25 metres at the highest point and 2.35
metres at the lowest point. Whilst it is acknowledged that the structure
will be larger than the previous green house, it is unlikely to have a
detrimental impact in terms of loss of light. This is in part a result of the
distance that is maintained between the structure and the boundaries
to the north and south. A distance of 1.67 metres separates the
summerhouse with the boundary to the north and 1.29 metres
separates the summerhouse with the boundary to the south. The large
tree located in the north east corner of the garden already casts some
overshadowing to neighbouring gardens and the summer house is
unlikely to have an additional detrimental impact of overshadowing.
The summerhouse is slightly raised from ground level and an area of
decking is proposed to the front and north side of the structure.
Concerns have been raised by neighbouring properties with regard to
potential overlooking from the summerhouse to the occupiers of the
ground floor flat of no. 8 Selborne Road. In consideration of the
distance that separates the rear wall of the properties and the
summerhouse and the number of trees aligning the boundary wall, it is
unlikely the summerhouse will result in a loss of privacy.
Impact on the character of the Conservation Area:
Whilst the summerhouse is not likely to have a detrimental impact on
neighbouring properties in terms of overlooking and overshadowing,
the proposed structure will appear overdominant and excessively bulky
in the rear garden due to the size of the structure and the level it is
raised from the ground. The proposed metal roofing material is similarly
considered unsuitable, which is exacerbated by the scale of the
proposed structure and the mass of the roof as a result. It is considered
that the proposed summerhouse would fail to enhance and preserve
the character and appearance of the Willett Estate Conservation Area
in which the property is located by virtue of the excessive bulk created
by the structure.
Conclusion:
To conclude, whilst the summer house is not likely to have a detrimental
impact on residential amenity this does not outweigh, however, the
excessive bulk created by the structure and the failure of the summer
house to preserve and enhance the visual amenities of the
Conservation Area in which the property is located; the application is
therefore recommended for refusal.
8 EQUALITIES IMPLICATIONS
None identified.
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
No: BH2004/00739/FP Ward: GOLDSMID
Address: 5B Cambridge Grove
Proposal: Proposed ground floor conversion of garage/store to habitable
use and new first floor conservatory to rear.
Officer: Steve Walker, tel: 292337 Received
Date:
04 March 2004
Con Area: THE WILLETT ESTATE Expiry Date: 29 April 2004
Agent: Arc Design Services, 1 The Fieldway, Ditchling, Hassocks, West
Sussex
Applicant
:
Mr P Fassam, 65 Surrenden Road, Brighton
1 RECOMMENDATION
Grant Planning Permission subject to the following conditions:-
1. 00.01 Full Planning.
2. The parapet wall to the rear single storey vinery structure shall be
constructed in accordance with the detail indicated on drawing
no. A225/04/01 rev C1 before the conservatory hereby permitted is
brought into use.
Reason: To prevent overlooking of neighbouring properties in
compliance with policies BE1 of the Hove Borough Local Plan and
QD27 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft.
3. The area of open terrace on the roof of the single storey vinery
structure between the south facing elevation of the conservatory
and proposed parapet shall be used for maintenance purposes
only and shall not be used for the purposes of sitting out.
Reason: To prevent overlooking of neighbouring properties in
compliance with policies BE1 of the Hove Borough Local Plan and
QD27 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft.
4. Full details of the method of construction of the conservatory
including joinery details and glazing details shall be submitted to
and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority before
development commences. The conservatory shall thereafter be
constructed in accordance with the agreed details.
Reason: To preserve the character and appearance of the Listed
Building within The Willett Estate Conservation Area, in compliance
with policies BE5 and BE8 of the Hove Borough Local Plan and HE1
and HE6 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft.
5. A glazed screen shall be placed behind the proposed folding
doors to permit cycle parking and bin storage to the premises, full
details of which shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the
Local Planning Authority before development commences. The
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
screen shall thereafter be installed and facilities made available
before the room proposed to be converted to living
accommodation is brought into use for this purpose.
Reason: To ensure an appropriate form of development and
ensure adequate parking and refuse storage facilities in
accordance with policies BE1, BE18 and TR16 of the Hove Borough
Local Plan and TR12 and QD27 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan
Second Deposit Draft.
Informatives:
1. This decision is based on drawing nos. A225/04/01 rev C1 submitted
on 4 March 2004
2. The positioning of the bedroom adjacent to the kitchen may not
comply with the Building Regulations. The applicant is advised to
seek appropriate advice to secure adequate means of escape.
3. This decision to grant Planning Permission has been taken having
regard to the policies and proposals in the Hove Borough Local
Plan and Brighton & Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft set out
below, and to all relevant material considerations:
Hove Borough Local Plan:
BE1- General guidelines
BE5 – Listed Buildings
BE8 – Development in Conservation Areas
BE18 – Refuse disposal
TR16 – Cycle and motor cycle parking
Brighton and Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft:
QD14 – Extensions and alterations
QD27 – Protection of amenity
HE1 – Listed Buildings
HE6 – Development in conservation areas
TR12 – cycle access and parking
2 THE SITE
This application relates to mews premises on the southern side of
Cambridge Grove. The rear wall of the main premises is also the main
curtilage wall to the adjoining listed building at no. 34 Cromwell Road.
Additionally, the properties have what were originally two storey
structures to the rear, known as vineries, which are now in various states
of repair. These are commonly used or garden room/storage at the
rear of the Cromwell Road properties, although some have been
converted as part of redevelopment of the mews buildings facing
Cambridge Grove. The application property has only the ground floor
of this structure remaining. The rear garden area to No.34 remains
wholly in the ownership of that property. The site lies within The Willett
Estate Conservation Area.
3 RELEVANT HISTORY
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
In 1986, Planning permission was granted for the conversion of existing
premises into 4 self-contained town houses, each with integral garage,
including extensions to roof (ref.:86/0611). This was subject to a
condition restricting the use of the ground floor area as a garage
/store, and no other use.
In 2003, two applications were received, an application for full
Planning Permission for the variation of the condition which had
restricted the use of the front area of the ground floor to parking, to
permit additional living accommodation, and the construction of a
rear conservatory; and a corresponding application for Listed Building
Consent for the construction of the rear conservatory. The latter was
granted, but the former was refused on the grounds of overlooking the
rear garden area of the properties to the rear, the positioning of
windows immediately adjacent to the boundary being a poor design
feature, and the inappropriateness of the proposed front elevation
alterations (refs. BH2003/2605/FP and BH2003/01606/LB). A further
application was received for a resubmission of the application, but this
was withdrawn (ref. BH2003/03412/FP).
4 THE APPLICATION
This application relates to mews premises on the southern side of
Cambridge Grove. The rear wall of the main premises is also the main
curtilage wall to the adjoining listed building at no. 34 Cromwell Road.
Additionally, the properties have what were originally two storey
structures to the rear, known as venires, which are now in various states
of repair. The application property has only the ground floor of this
structure remaining. The rear garden area to No.33 has been divided
into two, with the northern half added to the curtilage of No. 7A. The
site lies within The Willett Estate Conservation Area. The proposal is to
construct a white painted timber conservatory at first floor level and to
convert the garage store area at ground floor level to living
accommodation, with consequential alterations to the front elevation.
This would comprise the provision of three panelled folding garage
doors with glazed panels and fanlight, although it is unlikely these
would be open given the internal domestic use. Alternative
conventional access is gained from the existing adjacent door.
Additionally, the rear elevation of the vinery structure would be bricked
in, using brickwork to match the existing structure.
5 CONSULTATIONS
External:
Neighbours: The occupiers of neighbouring properties have been
consulted on the proposal. Flat 2, 34 Cromwell Road (with similar letters
signed by flats 1, 3, 4 and 5) object as follows:–
1. Overlooking and consequential loss of privacy - A new first floor
conservatory would afford all the year round use as a seating area and
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
look directly into a neighbouring garden. An outside area to the
conservatory would look directly down onto the garden area. It would
further overlook the garden and bedroom of Flat 1. It is noted that
another conservatory at the rear of 36 Cornwall Road has been
designed to minimise overlooking by means of obscure glass and
slatting. Any seating area outside the conservatory should ensure that
the parapet wall should be at least five-foot in height.
2. Removal of tree – Last year, an application was made to have the
tree removed by bogus persons on behalf of the neighbour. No
development would be supported which resulted in the removal of the
tree.
Comments have also been made that the proposed conservatory
would not comply with building regulations with regard to escape from
a rear bedroom. If the rooflights in the bedroom were used as an
escape, the only way of gaining access would be across neighbouring
rooftops. Furthermore, the glazed roof of the conservatory would
impair or remove any escape route from the top rear dormer-
windowed room, which is presumed habitable. However, these are not
issues which can be taken into consideration in an assessment of the
planning merits of the proposal.
Internal:
Conservation & Design: No objections.
Arboriculturalist: No objections.
6 PLANNING POLICIES
Hove Borough Local Plan:
BE1- General guidelines
BE5 – Listed Buildings
BE8 – Development in Conservation Areas
BE18 – Refuse disposal
TR16 – Cycle and motor cycle parking
Brighton and Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft:
QD14 – Extensions and alterations
QD27 – Protection of amenity
HE1 – Listed Buildings
HE6 – Development in conservation areas
TR12 – Cycle access and parking
7 CONSIDERATIONS
The main considerations are the effects of the proposal on the
character and appearance of the mews property onto which it is
attached within The Willett Estate Conservation Area, the setting of the
listed building, and the effects on neighbouring residential amenity.
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
The Conservation Officer is satisfied that the conservatory element of
the proposal will considerably enhance the appearance of the vinery
structure to the rear of the premises, thereby both enhancing the
character of the property within the Conservation Area, and the
setting of the main Listed Building in Cromwell Road. For this reason
Listed Building Consent was granted for a similar construction last year.
In terms of the effect on neighbouring amenity, it should first be noted
that a proposal for a similar conservatory on the first floor of the vinery
structure was recently granted permission at 5 Cambridge Grove (ref.:
BH2003/00679/FP). However, in that particular location, the rear garden
area had been divided in two – the southern half remaining in the
ownership of 33 Cromwell Road, and the northern half being brought
into the curtilage of 7A Cambridge Grove. The conservatory would, in
that particular case, therefore primarily looked across its own rear
garden, and whilst there would have been some oblique overlooking
to the gardens of 32, 33 and 34 Cromwell Road, and the rooms in 33
Cromwell Road immediately behind, this would not have been
significant in itself to warrant refusal.
However, the vinery roof to the application site would look wholly
across the rear garden to no 34 Cromwell Road, which has a clear
sitting-out area immediately to the south of the conservatory position. It
is considered that in these circumstances, the use of the conservatory
at first floor level would have given a “grandstand” view into rear
garden, and again, to a lesser extent the main building. Whilst there is
an interface distance of some 21m: (and, indeed this distance
represents a normal planning standard often quoted to achieve
satisfactory distance between elevations to prevent overlooking), a
site visit to the No.34 revealed that the first floor level conservatory
would look straight into the large windows of No.34. It was for this
reason, therefore, that whilst Listed Building Consent was granted, a
corresponding application for Planning Permission was refused last
year.
The depth of the terrace is about 4 m. The conservatory now under
consideration would extend 2.5m into this area, leaving a further 1.5m
to the edge, beyond which is the neighbouring garden. The applicant
has agreed to build a parapet to the edge of the terrace area to a
height of 1.1m. Provided there is no use of the external area between
the edge of the conservatory and the parapet (which can be secured
by an appropriate condition), there would be no overlooking of the
garden area below. Similarly, this arrangement would prevent any
significant overlooking from inside the conservatory. It is therefore
considered that the issue of overlooking has been satisfactorily
addressed.
The original plans indicated the introduction of high level windows at
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
ground floor level, in the rear elevation, directly adjacent to the
garden area to Flat 1 Cromwell road. This element has now been
deleted and replaced with rooflights set in the external area between
the edge of the conservatory and the parapet. Whilst this is satisfactory
from a planning point of view, the neighbours are correct that the
current plans do not appear to indicate a satisfactory means of
escape from the bedroom in the case of fire. This may be suitably
addressed through ensuing fire doors are placed at appropriate points,
but this is a matter for Building Regulations.
In respect of the reference to a tree, the application states that a tree
is to be felled to make way for the development. The arboriculturalist
has examined the tree and stated that whilst it makes a contribution to
local amenity, it would not be worthy of a tree preservation order.
However, it lies within the site of the adjacent property and the owner
has made it clear that they would not wish the tree to be removed. This
matter would have to be resolved between parties as a separate
matter.
In terms of the use of the ground floor to provide residential
accommodation instead of garage or store, there would be no
objections to the principle, subject to the provision of suitable refuse
storage and cycle parking facilities, which could be achieved in a
suitable design. The Conservation Officer noted that the original design
of the front opening would be inconsistent with the treatment afforded
to other conversions and would suggest that recent alterations be
examined to achieve a more appropriate solution. The revised
application provides folding garage doors that may be opened onto
the street as an alternative to the existing entrance door which will be
retained. This would be a satisfactory solution and would preserve the
character and appearance of the front of the property in the
conservation area. An inner screen would, however, be necessary and
it would be possible to store cycles and refuse in the intervening space.
Conclusion:
The Conservation Officer is satisfied that the structure will preserve the
character of the area, and would not harm the setting of the main
Listed Building. The original development would have lead to a
significant loss of privacy to the rear garden of No.34 Cromwell Road,
and to a lesser extent habitable rooms facing the conservatory. The
revised plans make adequate arrangement to prevent overlooking.
Additionally the works proposed to the front elevation should preserve
the character of the Grove. It is therefore recommended that Planning
Permission be granted.
8 EQUALITIES IMPLICATIONS
None identified.
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
No: BH2004/01217/FP Ward: GOLDSMID
Address: Coniston Court, (36-65) Holland Road
Proposal: Additional storey creating 3 penthouse flats.
Officer: Paul Earp, tel: 292193 Received
Date:
22 March 2004
Expiry Date: 9 June 2004
Agent: M J Lewis, 25 St Nicholas Lodge, Church Street, Brighton
Applicant
:
Arrowdell Ltd, 27 Oriental Place, Brighton
1 RECOMMENDATION
Grant Planning Permission subject to the following conditions:
1. 01.01 – Full planning.
2. 01.02 – Rendered finish.
Reason: Add “and to comply with policies B1 and BE19 of the Hove
Borough Local Plan and QD1 and QD14 of the Brighton and Hove
Local Plan Second Deposit Draft".
3. 06.02C – Provision of secure and covered cycle parking.
Reason: Add “and to comply with policies TR16 of the Hove
Borough Local Plan and TR12 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan
Second Deposit Draft".
2 THE SITE
Coniston Court consists of 65 flats within two, six storey blocks
constructed in the 1960s. The buildings are situated on the west side of
the road and are not within a conservation area. The application site
relates to the northern block, which is adjacent to Amber Court, a
storey post-war block of 51 flats of similar scale and height to Coniston
Court.
3 RELEVANT HISTORY
BH2003/00385/FP – a similar application for an additional storey
creating 3 penthouse flats on the immediately adjacent block of flats
was refused by the Sub-Committee in May 2003 but a subsequent
appeal was allowed.
4 THE APPLICATION
The proposal is for the construction of an additional storey to form 3
flats at roof level each with a small balcony. The additional floor, to be
2.4m in height, would be set back from the face of the building below
on all elevations and by 3.0m from the front of the building. The existing
lift motor room would be incorporated into the extension. Access to
the floor would be via stairs only; the existing lift is not to be extended.
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
Two of the flats would have 2 bedrooms, the other would be a one-
bedroomed unit.
5 CONSULTATIONS
External:
Neighbours: Amber Court, 100-106 Holland Road: 1 letter, no flat
number given; Coniston Court: flats 7, 17, 33, 35, 37, 44, 45, 52, 54, 55,
56, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 65; 109 Holland Road; 395a Portland Road and
14 St Helens Crescent – leaseholder of 49 Coniston Court:
object to the proposal for the following reasons:
- Overshadowing, loss of privacy and light to surrounding properties.
- Coniston Court is the same height as surrounding properties, an
additional storey would result in a development out of keeping with
the existing skyline and area.
- Lack of parking. Parking in the area is already difficult with Police
Station, Charter Medical Centre and other new residential
development in the area. The site has only 15 spaces for 35 flats,
additional 3 flats would exacerbate the existing situation.
- Building works would create major disturbance to residents of
Coniston Court. Many people within the building are elderly or work
shifts. Noise, dust, dirt during construction would be detrimental to
heath and well being of residents.
- There has been subsidence to the building, question the safety of
adding an additional storey.
- Existing lift terminates at 5th floor. Additional floor, to be accessed by
stairs only, would not provide satisfactory access for disabled
access.
- Owners of the top floor feel aggrieved that as they purchased the
top floor to ensure that no one was above them and to obtain
complete privacy, that these benefits will be lost and that the
proposal would reduce the value of their flats and cause distress.
- Although planning permission has been granted for 3 flats on the
other block forming Coniston Court, this case should be considered
on its merit and not automatically approved. This building is entirely
different in design and structure to the other block. The proposal
conflicts with Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) Notes
relating to roof Alterations and extensions and parking standards,
and as the building is 6 storey, should be determined as a tall
building (SPG15, section 7).
- Should application be approved request conditions such as the
time when the development must be started and hours of site
operation.
- Loss of property value.
- Approval would create a precedent for other such development in
the surrounding area.
- Scaffolding during construction would present a security risk.
- Adverse impact on wildlife habitat. Though this is an urban area,
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
surrounding vegetation provides habitats for wildlife such as
squirrels, owls and bats which will be endangered.
Internal:
Traffic Manager: No objection of traffic grounds.
Private Sector Housing: No objections.
6 PLANNING POLICIES
Hove Borough Local Plan:
BE1 – General guideline
BE19 – Extensions – materials
TR16 – Cycle parking
TR26 – Car parking standards
Brighton and Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft:
QD1 – Design – quality of development
QD2 – Design – quality of development
QD2 – Design – key principles for neighbourhoods
QD3 – design – full an effective use of sites
QD14 – Extensions and alterations
TR12 – Cycle access and parking
QD27 – Protection of amenity
HO4 – Dwelling densities
HO – Provision of private amenity space in residential development
Supplementary Planning Guidance Notes:
SPGBH1: Roof Alterations and Extensions.
7 CONSIDERATIONS
The main considerations in the determination of the application are
the effects of the proposed additional storey on the character and
appearance of the building and street scene and upon residential
amenity.
Coniston Court consists of two purpose built blocks of flats constructed
in the 1960’s; the application relates to the northern block which is
approximately 1.5m higher than the southern block. The area is
predominantly residential in character with modern blocks of flats of
similar scale to the Coniston Court buildings to both the north and west
(rear); housing on the east side of the street is two storey. The site is not
within a conservation area.
Planning policies encourage the efficient use of land and permit
extensions and alterations to buildings which are well designed and
sited in relation to the property to be extended and would not result in
loss of amenity.
This application follows the permission, granted on appeal last year, for
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
an almost identical development of 3 penthouse flats on the southern
block. The application was refused by the Sub-Committee as
constituting and overdevelopment of the site which would create
noise, disturbance and loss of amenity to existing residents, and as the
utilitarian design of the additional storey would be out of character
with and detract from the visual amenities of the area. The Planning
Inspector noted the nature of surrounding development and was of
the opinion that, given the set back of the proposed extra storey from
the main building line, the development would not substantially
change the visual impact of the block at street level. From a greater
distance, he observed that the new floor would be no higher than the
existing lift motor room and its visual impact would be reduced by its
simple design, concluding that the additional floor would be
appropriate in the context of the unassuming appearance of the
existing block, would not cause unacceptable harm on the amenities
of the occupiers of the building or surrounding properties in terms of
daylight, sunlight, loss of privacy, noise and disturbance and would not
result in a significant level of increased parking problems in the area.
Having taken regard of all other matters raised, the appeal was
allowed. This appeal decision is a relevant material planning
consideration in the context of this application.
Whilst the northern block of Coniston Court, the subject of this
application, is approximately 1.5m higher that the southern block on
which the additional penthouses have been approved, the
circumstances are almost identical. The proposed additional storey
would be approximately the same height as the existing lift shaft and
would not be unduly prominent in the street scene. A rendered finish
would reflect the appearance of the existing building. Despite
objections it is not considered that the addition would detract from the
appearance of the building or the area.
Objections have also been received stating that proposal would result
in a loss of privacy, overshadow and lead to a loss of privacy to
surrounding properties. Given the distance between properties, the set
back of the proposed floor and overlooking from existing windows, it is
not considered that the proposal would result in an undue loss of
residential amenity.
The proposal does not include provision of off-street parking. Whilst
objections have been received stating that parking within the area is
at a premium and that the development would exacerbate existing
problems, the Traffic Engineer considers that the increase of three units
would not result in a level of increase to make any significant
difference. Scope exists for the provision of covered and secure cycle
storage and is requested by condition.
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
Conclusion:
It is considered that there is little difference between this application
and that allowed on appeal to the neighbouring block.
Notwithstanding the objections received, this proposal is considered
acceptable for the reasons stated and given the history of the
southern block, refusal could not be upheld on appeal.
Public objections relating to disturbance during construction are not
valid reasons to resist development. Comments relating to the
capability of the building to structurally accommodate additional
weight are a building control, and not a planning, matter.
8 EQUALITIES IMPLICATIONS
It is not proposed to extend the lift from the floor below to serve these
extra units, but Part M of the Building Regulations would apply.
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
No: BH2003/02004/FP Ward: GOLDSMID
Address: Goodwood Court, Cromwell Road
Proposal: Part additional storey on Palmeira Place frontage to provide
one four bedroom penthouse flat with roof terrace.
Officer: Nicola Slater, tel: 292114 Received
Date:
13 June 2003
Con Area: WILLETT ESTATE Expiry Date: 08 August 2003
Agent: N/A
Applicant
:
Anstone Properties Ltd, 29 Palmeira Mansions, Church Road,
Hove
1 RECOMMENDATION
Refuse planning permission for the following reason:
1. The proposed penthouse apartment fronting Palmeira Place would
by virtue of its size, bulk, design and prominence in the street scene
represent an unsightly feature detrimental to the visual amenities of
the building and fail to enhance the character and appearance of
this part of the Willett Estate Conservation Area. The proposal is
therefore contrary to policies BE1 and BE8 of the Hove Borough
Local Plan and QD1, QD2, QD14 and HE6 of the Brighton and Hove
Local Plan Second Deposit Draft 2001.
Informatives:
1. This decision is based on drawing nos. C1900/P3/SK01, C1900/1,
C1900/4 submitted on 13 June 2003; C1900/P3.SK02 submitted on 19
August 2003; and C1900/11 submitted on 17 September 2003.
2 THE SITE
The application relates to a flat roofed block of flats located on the
corner of Cromwell Road and Palmeira Place. The block is ‘L’ shaped
and consists of six storeys facing south onto Cromwell Road with a side
wing along Palmeira Place that is five storeys in height. The top flats to
the wing facing Palmeira Place are set back from the elevations below
with terraces on the east and west facing elevations. Immediately to
the north is a pair of semi-detached houses on the corner of Palmeira
Place with Lorna Road. There is a small rear parking area and service
yard, accessed from Palmeira Place and a doctor’s surgery at ground
floor level. The application site is situated within the Willett Estate
Conservation Area.
3 RELEVANT HISTORY
There have been various applications in the past relating to
conversions of units, provision of a refuse storage and replacement
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
windows.
Planning permission was refused in November 2002 (BH2002/02407/FP)
for the construction of an additional storey on the Palmeira Place
frontage to provide two, three bedroom penthouse flats. The reason
for refusal was as follows:
‘The proposal by virtue of its size, bulk, design and prominence in the
street scene would form an unsightly feature detrimental to the visual
amenities of the building and surrounding Willett Estate Conservation
Area. The proposal is therefore contrary to planning policies BE1 and
BE8 of the Hove Borough Local Plan and QD1, QD2, QD14 and HE6 of
the Brighton and Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft 2001.’
A subsequent application in May 2003 (BH2003/00938/FP) for the
construction of an additional storey on the Palmeira Place frontage to
provide two, two bedroom penthouse flats was withdrawn.
4 THE APPLICATION
Planning permission is sought for the construction of a part additional
storey to the side wing of the existing building fronting Palmeira Place,
consisting of one, four bedroom penthouse with a roof terrace. As
originally submitted the height of the additional storey matched in
height to the Cromwell Road elevation, with windows and detailing
proposed to match the existing top floor of the Palmeira Place
frontage. The scheme has subsequently been amended, now
proposing a mansard flat roof structure, which is set slightly below the
height of the six-storey element of the building that fronts onto
Cromwell Road.
5 CONSULTATIONS
External:
Neighbours: Two letters of objection have been received from the
occupiers of 29 Goodwood Court, Cromwell Road and 20 Lorna Road
raising the following points:
- noise and disturbance during the building works
- there will be an increase in the use of communal ways, the lift, the
car park and disposal of rubbish
- the new block will lead to loss of privacy and loss of light to residents
in the block and neighbouring properties
- the extra storey will be out of keeping to the size of the other flats,
which comprise of studio flats and one bedroom flats
- Palmeira Place side should be kept lower, as originally built
- the block is unsightly and it will not help putting on an additional
storey
- the letter of support that accompanied the application is not in the
spirit of the planning process of being fair.
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
One letter of support accompanied the application from the
Goodwood Court (Hove) Management Ltd, the company of lessees for
the property, raising the following points:
- the additional storey on the Palmeira Place frontage will present a
more balanced appearance to this block of flats in contrast to the
present situation where there are only four storeys on the Palmeira
Place frontage and five to Cromwell Road.
- the block fronting Palmeira Place is now 35 years old and the roof is
in need of replacement at substantial cost to the lessees – the
current proposal will enable a new modern roof to be formed
without onerous financial burden being placed on the lessees.
- a precedent exists in respect of similar planning consents granted in
the area.
Internal:
Conservation & Design:
Original scheme:
A more natural extended form would be for the extension to match in
bulk the fifth floor fronting Cromwell Road i.e. create matching bulk
wrapping around the corner tower. The original top parapet might be
usefully played down/removed (i.e. too many strong horizontal bands)
and perhaps the new top parapet fascia cladding could be reduced
in depth, to make it less assertive.
Amended scheme:
The amendments do not create the desired balanced appearance for
this block. The agent refers to the new height as matching that along
Cromwell Road and in consequence retaining its character and
appearance. However, the character of this building is of bays with a
top floor recess, providing a balcony for what reads as a diminishing
attic storey. To introduce an additional storey on the side elevation,
will alter this basic characteristic and in fact create imbalance and an
incongruous addition. Whilst the revised elevations will play down to
some degree this contrasts by deleting the existing parapet fascia, the
extra floor will remain a discordant element and over such a stretch of
frontage will upset the rhythm of the design and look wholly out of
place.
6 PLANNING POLICIES
Hove Borough Local Plan:
BE1 - General Development
BE8 - Development within Conservation Areas
Brighton and Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft:
QD1 - Development Design
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
QD2 - Neighbourhood Design
QD3 - Design – Efficient and Effective use of sites
QD4 - Design – Strategic Impact
QD14 - Extensions and Alterations
QD27 - Protection of Amenity
HO4 - Dwelling Densities
HO6 - Car free housing
HE6 - Development within Conservation Areas
Supplementary Planning Guidance Note BH1: Roof Extensions and
Alterations
7 CONSIDERATIONS
The determining issues of this application relate to the visual impact on
the main building, the street scene and the Willett Estate Conservation
Area and whether the proposed development would have an impact
on the amenities of neighbouring occupiers.
Previous planning applications proposed extensions which extended
across the entire frontage of the side wing. The first scheme
(BH2002/02407/FP) proposed to create two, three bedroom units and
the second scheme (BH2003/00938/FP) proposed to create two, two
bedroom units. The current application proposes to create a part
additional storey, with the length of the extension extending across
much of the roof, whilst retaining a roof terrace on the northern part of
the side wing. In addition the amount of accommodation has been
reduced to form one, four-bedroom unit. As originally submitted the
height of the additional storey matched in height to the Cromwell
Road elevation, with windows and detailing proposed to match the
existing top floor of the Palmeira Place frontage. The scheme has
subsequently been amended, proposing a mansard roof structure,
which is set slightly below the height of the Cromwell road frontage.
Impact on amenity
It is considered that the proposal would not cause significant loss of
privacy to surrounding residential properties. There are many windows
on the east and west facing elevations of the existing building and the
addition of more windows as high as the sixth floor would not
exacerbate the existing situation. Objections have been received in
terms of loss of light and increased overshadowing. Whilst there would
be some overshadowing as a result of the increased structure, it is not
likely to have a further detrimental impact on amenity in relation to the
shadowing caused by the existing five storey structure fronting
Palmeira Place or the six storey structure fronting Cromwell Road. It is
considered therefore that the additional unit would have an additional
detrimental impact to warrant refusal of this application.
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
Visual Impact
Conservation Officers have commented on the proposed scheme and
consider that the proposed scheme would unbalance the existing
character and appearance of the building. The existing side wing
fronting Palmeira Place appears subordinate to the main bulk of the
building fronting Cromwell Road. This is because the south facing
elevation is one storey higher than the side wing and the existing top
flats facing Palmeira Place are set back from the façade of the
building. The top floor recess, providing a balcony area, reads as a
diminishing attic storey. Whilst the proposed addition is proposed to be
set slightly below the height of the existing Cromwell Road frontage, it is
considered that the addition will appear overly bulky, creating an
incongruous, dominant feature that does not relate to the existing
character of the building especially in relation to the two adjacent
houses to the north. As a result, the proposed part additional storey to
the side wing of the building is likely to have a detrimental impact on
the appearance of the existing building and fails to enhance the
character and appearance of the Willett Estate Conservation Area.
Policy QD3 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft
encourages efficient and effective use of sites and it could be argued
that the additional storey makes an efficient use of urban land.
However, where an intensive use is proposed, the policy makes clear
that proposals incorporate intensity appropriate to the locality and
townscape and the nature of the development. The proposal is
deemed inappropriate in terms of the appearance of the surrounding
locality and therefore contrary to this policy.
Conclusion:
Whilst there has been a reduction in the extent of the additional storey
proposed on the side wing fronting Palmeira Place compared to
previous schemes, it is considered that the proposal would appear
visually overbearing in the street scene in terms of bulk and design and
would have a detrimental impact on the character of the Willett Estate
Conservation Area. As a result the application is recommended for
refusal.
8 EQUALITIES IMPLICATIONS
The new unit would be required to conform with Part M of the Buildings
Regulations.
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
No: BH2004/00852/FP Ward: GOLDSMID
Address: 9 Nizells Avenue
Proposal: Partial change of use of ground floor and full change of use of
first floor from residential to childrens nursery. Addition of front
dormer windows and flank and rear velux windows.
Officer: Paul Earp, tel: 292193 Received
Date:
19 February 2004
Con Area: N/A Expiry Date: 07 May 2004
Agent: DMH Planning, 100 Queens Road, Brighton.
Applicant
:
Hopscotch Nurseries, 9 Aymer Road, Hove.
1 RECOMMENDATION
Minded to Grant planning permission subject to a S106 Obligation to
secure the submission and implementation of a travel plan, a
management plan for the outside play area and the following
conditions:
1. 01.01 Full Planning.
2. The number of children using the day nursery at any time shall not
exceed 51 without the prior approval of the Local Planning
Authority.
Reason: To prevent over- intensive use of the premises and
consequent adverse effect on the character of the area and to
comply with policies BE1 and C10 of the Hove Borough Local Plan
and policies QD27 and HO25 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan
Second Deposit Draft 2001.
3. The hours of use of the premises should be restricted to within the
hours of 08.00 and 18.00 hours on Mondays to Fridays only with no
use permitted on Saturdays, Sundays or Bank Holidays.
Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality and to comply
with policy BE1 of the Hove Borough Local Plan and QD27 of the
Brighton & Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft 2001.
4. Outdoor play sessions shall be restricted to within the hours of 09.00
to 17.00 Mondays to Fridays only with no use permitted on
Saturdays, Sundays and Bank Holidays.
Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality and to comply
with policy BE1 of the Hove Borough Local Plan and policy QD27
and of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft 2001.
5. Before the development hereby permitted is commenced a
scheme indicating the provision to be made for disabled people to
gain access to the premises shall have been submitted to and
approved by the Local Planning Authority. The agreed scheme
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
shall be implemented before the development hereby permitted is
brought into use.
Reason: To ensure satisfactory access/ facilities for the disabled
and in order to comply with policies BE1 of the Hove Borough Local
Plan and policy HO19 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan Second
Deposit Draft 2001.
6. The residential unit shown on the approved drawings shall be
ancillary to the use of the day nursery only.
Reason: In order to retain a residential unit and to comply with
policies C10 of the Hove Borough Local Plan and policy HO25
of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft 2001.
7. 06.02C Prior to works commencing a scheme for the integrated
provision of secure, covered cycle parking facilities shall be
submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The
approved scheme shall be fully implemented and made available
for use prior to the occupation of the development and shall be
maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure a comprehensive range of on-site, secure cycle
parking facilities are made available to both staff and parents and
to comply with policies C10 and TR16 of the Hove Borough Local
Plan and policies SU2 and HO25 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan
Second Deposit Draft 2001.
8. No amplified music or musical equipment shall be used in the
outdoor play area at any time.
Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality and to comply
with policy BE1 of the Hove Borough Local Plan and policy QD27
and of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft 2001.
9. The outdoor play area shall have an appropriate soft play surface
to minimise the generation of noise.
Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality and to comply
with policy BE1 of the Hove Borough Local Plan and policy QD27
and of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft 2001.
10. Details of 1.8 metre high timber reflective, or equivalent (e.g. 1.8m
high brick wall), noise barrier with a minimum mass requirement of
10 kg/m2 shall be erected along the two external east and west
sides of the rear external play area. The design scheme for the
barrier shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning
Authority before erection and thereafter retained to the
satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority for the duration of the
approved use. The use hereby approved shall not commence until
the barrier is erected.
Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality and to comply
with policy BE1 of the Hove Borough Local Plan and policy QD27
and of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft 2001.
11. The rooflight to the west elevation shall be a minimum of 2.4m
above floor level of the room it forms part and that within the east
elevations shall be obscure glazed, and thereafter permanently
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
maintained.
Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality and to comply
with policy BE1of the Hove Borough Local Plan and policy QD27
and of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft 2001.
Informatives:
1. This decision is based on drawing nos. 1A submitted on 19 February
2004 and 2E submitted on 7 May 2004.
2. This decision to grant Planning Permission has been taken having
regard to the policies and proposals in Hove Borough Local Plan
and Brighton & Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft set out
below, and to all relevant material considerations:
Hove Borough Local Plan:
BE1 - General Development
H10 – Loss of residential accommodation
H12 – Reversion to residential
C2 - Community facilities in residential areas
C10 – Child care facilities
TR16 – Cycle and motorcycle parking
Brighton & Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft 2001:
SU2 – Efficiency of development
TR – Travel Plans (New policy)
TR12 – Cycle access and parking
QD14 – Extensions and alterations
QD27 - Protection of Amenity
HO7 - Retaining housing
HO19 – New community facilities
HO25 – Day nurseries and child care facilities
Supplementary planning Guidance Notes:
SPGBH1: Roof alterations and extensions
3. The Management Plan for outdoor play area should also show how
the outside area is managed, including details of staff supervision,
layout of area showing types of play areas (e.g. quiet, wet, sand
areas, planting, etc).
2 THE SITE
The application site is a large detached property located on the north
side of Nizells Avenue, facing St. Ann’s Well Gardens in Hove. The
dwelling is situated within a modest sized plot with a good size rear
garden. The surrounding area is residential in character, with single
dwellings either side and a post-war four storey block of 12 flats to the
rear. The majority of the ground floor currently forms a childrens nursery
and the first floor, together with two rooms on the ground floor form
residential, currently unoccupied. Nizells Avenue is within a controlled
parking zone.
3 RELEVANT HISTORY
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
M/12815/67 - use as a small day nursery play group, granted 31.3.67.
M/13781/67 - build a small playroom extension to existing children’s
nursery to accommodate a further 25 children, refused 22.10.68.
Appeal dismissed 23.6.69.
3/74/0381 - increase number of children at Rainbow Nursery School
from 15 to 24, refused 17.2.75.
BH2002/02636/FP - removal and variation of all conditions of planning
reference M/12815/67. Removal of condition making use of premises
personal to the applicant. Extend hours of use to 8.30am – 6.00pm
Monday to Friday only. Increase number of children to 60. Application
withdrawn.
BH2002/02757/FP - partial change of use of ground floor and full
change of use of first floor from residential to children’s nursery.
Addition of front and side dormer windows and 2 rear velux windows
with ancillary one bedroom flat. Refused 28.2.03 after a Sub-
Committee site visit. Appeal dismissed 12.1.04.
4 THE APPLICATION
The existing nursery at 9 Nizells Avenue has approval (M/12815/67) for
15 children to use part of the ground floor only of the mainly residential
property. The nursery is currently operating with an attendance of 22
children. This application is for:
- Use of the whole of the ground and first floors of the property as
nursery use.
- Increase in the number of children from 15 (as approval
M/12815/67) to 51.
- Increase in hours of use from 08.30–17.30 Monday to Friday (as
approval M/12815/67) to 08.00 – 18.00 Monday to Friday.
- Formation of an ancillary one-bedroomed residential unit within the
roofspace.
- Alterations to the roof consist of formation of two dormers on front
(south) elevation, and insertion of total of 4 rooflights on side and
rear elevations.
5 CONSULTATIONS
External:
Neighbours: flats 2 & 5 Chester Court, 30 Davigdor Road; 11 Nizells
Avenue: Object to the proposal for the following reasons:
- Traffic: increase in the amount of traffic, and pollution levels.
- Detrimental to residential amenity: regret the original application
was not contested, neighbours have been tolerant in not
complaining about noise from the play area. Expansion of the
premises to a full blown commercial use for 60 children is
unacceptable in a residential area with residences in close
proximity. It is clear that the use of the play area will increase. Social
hours are not relevant if you re at home all day and have to keep
windows shut because of noise levels. Whether small children are
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
taken to the park infers that the premises are not really adequate.
10 Nizells Avenue: No objection to proposal as with velux window 2.4m
above floor level thereby removing the possibility of overlooking this
property.
OFSTED Early Years –
No observations but OFSTED would expect providers to demonstrate
how they will achieve National Standards.
Brighton & Hove Early Years Development and Childcare Partnership
(EYDCP):
“It is recommended that the property is suitable for a maximum of 51
children and takes into account the Ofsted standards the verbal
information from the owner.
There is a management plan for the outside area which is drawn up in
conjunction with the Environmental Health and EYDCP
The plans submitted do not give sufficient details of the way the nursery
would be used, but following my conversation with the applicant I
understand that the younger children will be on the first floor in three of
the four rooms, the fourth room being designated for staff.
The national standards for full day care also state that ‘Play areas are
large enough to give scope for free movement and well spread out
activities and there is adequate storage space’ (Standard 4.9)
There is storage space for much of the babies’ equipment in two of the
three baby rooms so the first floor is suitable for 16 children with 35
children on the ground floor making 51 children in total.
Wherever possible, a quality childcare setting would try to ensure that
young children have the use of the outside area at all times. When the
learning environment inside is taken outside and they have constant
use of the garden it promotes a calmer atmosphere whereas children
playing outside for short periods of time often bring about a
playground type environment, a situation everyone is trying to avoid
which is also difficult to monitor.
Since this application was submitted for planning permission the staff
have been on an outdoor training course and they are starting to
implement these strategies into the nursery routine. It is working very
successfully and I would recommend that this approach to the outside
is continued. The development of the garden area would be in the
nursery’s management plan and would show how the outside area
can be used to best effect ensuring children get a quality learning
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
environment, whilst at the same time take into consideration the
potential noise disturbance for neighbouring properties. It would be
drawn up in consultation with Environmental Health and the Early Years
Development and Childcare Partnership and the plan would include
considering staff ratios, the quality of resources and operational plan
for the outside environment, training, acoustic fencing and ground
surfaces”.
Internal:
School Travel Officer:
Any approval should be subject to securing a travel plan. This would be
essential to assist in reducing car movements at busy times on the local
road network.
Traffic Engineer:
The increase in the number of children is very likely to increase the level
of traffic. Whilst I note the comments of the Planning Inspector in the
determination of the recent appeal, I am concerned that this will
cause nuisance in terms of noise and pollution and increase parking
problems in the immediate area. This may result in road safety
problems, particularly if inconsiderate or double parking occurs.
Environmental Health: Understand that the Hopscotch nursery has
been running for approximately 18 months and prior it has been a
nursery for over 30 years. Our records show that there has been no
noise complaints relating to this property being used as a nursery. Up
until Hopscotch took over there were 22 children permitted at the
nursery with no restrictions on numbers allowed in the garden. In the
past 18 months Hopscotch have limited numbers to 8 children at any
one time in the garden. However, since March they have been
operating a free flow policy. This is in line with the Early Year
Development and Childcare Partnership (EYDCP) which promotes the
idea of children choosing whether they play indoors or out. Providing
the outside area is well-planned, EYDCP have found that by giving
children unrestricted opportunities to play outside the noise level is
reduced, whereas when play outside is for short periods the activities
tend to be purely physical and therefore more noisy.
Recommend approval subject to approval of a management plan for
the outside area, restrictions of hours of use of the outside area and use
of the premises and measures including provision of acoustic fencing
and control on amplified music to protect the amenities of the
occupiers of neighbouring properties.
Internal:
Planning Policy: No objection in policy terms.
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
6 PLANNING POLICIES
Hove Borough Local Plan:
BE1 - General Development
H10 – Loss of residential accommodation
H12 – Reversion to residential
C2 - Community facilities in residential areas
C10 – Child care facilities
TR16 – Cycle and motorcycle parking
Brighton & Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft 2001:
SU2 – Efficiency of development
TR – Travel Plans (New policy)
TR12 – Cycle access and parking
QD14 – Extensions and alterations
QD27 - Protection of Amenity
HO7 - Retaining housing
HO19 – New community facilities
HO25 – Day nurseries and child care facilities
Supplementary planning Guidance Notes:
SPGBH1: Roof alterations and extensions.
7 CONSIDERATIONS
This application is a resubmission of BH2002/02757/FP, which was
refused and subsequently dismissed at appeal. The application was
subject to a Committee site visit. The reasons for refusal related to local
residential amenity as a result of the increase in number of children
and overlooking from the side dormer window proposed. At appeal,
the Inspector concluded that there would be no detrimental impact
on residential amenity, raised no objection to the extension of hours of
operation, but considered that the side dormer window would have an
adverse effect on the privacy of the neighbouring property. Essentially,
this was the reason that the appeal was dismissed.
The revised application replaces the side dormer window with a
rooflight, and like the previous scheme also proposes dormers on the
front of the property and two velux windows at the rear. Given that
the height of the rooflight to the bedroom on the west (side) elevation
is above head height, and the rooflight to east (side) elevation is to a
bathroom and would be obscure glazed, it is considered that there
would be no loss of privacy. The design of the rooflights and dormers
conform with supplementary planning guidance.
Despite the Traffic Engineers and public concerns relating to the
increase in traffic generation, the Planning Inspector noted that as the
activity would generally be concentrated to limited times of the day
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
and with proposed measures including a School Travel Plan and the
provision of cycle parking, and given the central location of the site
close to a frequent bus service, that the proposed increase in the size
of the use (then proposed to be up to 60, whereas 51 is now
recommended based on Ofsted standards) that the combination of all
the measures proposed would satisfactorily limit the impact of the
additional activity.
The main public objection still remains disturbance from noise. Whereas
the officer recommendation to the previous application was to limit
use of outside play sessions to a maximum of 8 children at any one
time to 90 minutes in the morning and 90 minutes in the afternoon, it is
now recommended, for the reasons stated by Early Years
Development and Childcare Partnership and supported by
Environmental Health (comments in section 5 above) that access to
outside playspace should be unrestricted on the basis that
concentrated use tends to be more noisy and therefore more likely to
cause disturbance.
Conclusions:
For the reasons stated it is considered that the application overcomes
the sole reason for dismissal of the previous appeal. With the measures
recommended by condition it is considered that the expansion of the
nursery should not result in undue loss of residential amenity by way of
noise, privacy or traffic generation. The premises still retain a small
residential unit.
8 EQUALITIES IMPLICATIONS
The proposal meets an identified shortfall of childcare across the city. A
planning condition is proposed to secure disabled access to the
building. The residents parking scheme allows for disabled badge
holders to park in any of the proposed parking bays along Nizells
Avenue.
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
No: BH2004/01070/FP Ward: GOLDSMID
Address: 51 Wilbury Avenue
Proposal: Demolition of existing house and erection of 9 new flats and
associated parking.
Officer: Steve Walker, tel: 292337 Received
Date:
26 March 2004
Con Area: N/A Expiry Date: 21 May 2004
Agent: Turner Associates , 115A Church Road, Hove
Applicant
:
A Talbot Esq, 51 Wilbury Avenue
1 RECOMMENDATION
Minded to Grant Planning Permission subject to the receipt of
additional plans indicating additional cycle storage facilities, increase
in the width of landscaping strip to the eastern side boundary and the
following conditions:-
1. 01.01Full Planning.
2. 03.01C Samples of materials.
3. 02.05C Refuse and recycling store (facilities)(H).
4. 06.03C Cycle parking facilities to be implemented.
5. 04.01 Landscaping/planting scheme. Scheme to include existing
trees and other planting to boundaries.
Reason: In the interests of residential and visual amenity, in
compliance with policies BE41 of the Hove Borough Local Plan and
QD15 and QD16 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan Second Deposit
Draft.
6. 04.02 Landscaping/planting (implementation/maintenance).
Reason: In the interests of residential and visual amenity, in
compliance with policies BE41 of the Hove Borough Local Plan and
QD15 and QD16 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan Second Deposit
Draft.
7. All windows to the east and west facing side elevations, and
bathroom windows to the rear elevation shall be obscurely glazed
and fixed shut, and thereafter retained as such at all times.
Reason: In the interests of residential amenities of occupiers of
neighbouring properties in compliance with policies BE1 of the
Hove Borough Local Plan and QD27 of the Brighton & Hove Local
Plan Second Deposit Draft.
Informatives:
1. This decision to grant Planning Permission has been taken having
regard to the policies and proposals in the Hove Borough Local
Plan and Brighton & Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft set out
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
below, and to all relevant material considerations, including
Supplementary Planning Guidance:
Hove Borough Local Plan:
BE1 – General guidelines
BE18 - Refuse storage
BE41 – Landscaping
TR17 – Road safety
Brighton and Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft:
TR – Safe development (new policy)
TR12 - Cycle access and parking
SU2 - Efficiency of development in use of energy, water and
materials
QD1 – Design
QD2 – Design - Key Principles
QD3 – Full and effective use of sites
QD4 - Design- Strategic Impact
QD15 – Landscape Design
QD16 - Trees and hedgerows
QD27 – Protection of amenity
HO3 - Dwelling type and size
HO13 – Accessible Housing and lifetime homes
2 THE SITE
This application relates to a detached house and garden area to the
northern side of Wilbury Avenue between the junctions of The Drive
and Wilbury Villas. The rear of the property adjoins dwellings on The
Upper Drive.
3 RELEVANT HISTORY
A similar application for the erection of 9 flats was submitted in
December 2003 (Ref. BH2004/00004/FP). This was later withdrawn.
4 THE APPLICATION
This application is for the demolition of the existing house and its
replacement with a three-storey block of nine flats, all of which would
have two bedrooms. It would be 23.5m wide at its maximium,13.2m
deep, set between 3.3 and 3.7m from the side boundary of No.49, and
between 4.8m and 5.1 m from the side boundary with No. 53 (reduced
to 3.8m at the position of a stairwell), 11.5m from the front and rear
boundaries. It would be in height, set 1.25m below ground level to
ensure a similar roof height to the flanking houses. The access would
make use of the existing entrance and a new entrance to 9 spaces, 2
of which are for disabled users. The three ground floor flats would have
small private patio area, and a communal garden area would be laid
out beyond. All upper floor flats would have a balcony to the front
elevation. Facing materials would be brickwork at ground floor level
with render above. Bin storage would be located close to the eastern
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
side boundary at the front, and cycle parking is indicated in a shed to
the rear garden area accessed by the eastern side boundary footway.
5 CONSULTATIONS
External:
Neighbours: The occupiers of neighbouring properties have been
consulted on the proposal. Letters of objection have been received
from: 32, 34, 36, 38, 40, 42, 44, 7 White Lodge, 45, 47, 49, Flat 1,50, 52, 53,
55, 57(2 letters),Wilbury Avenue, 4, 6, 8 The Upper Drive, Pooklands,
Pookbourne Lane, Sayers Common (owner of 48 Wilbury Ave).
Residents’ Association of Wilbury Avenue East – objections are on the
following grounds
1. Removal of a high quality dwellinghouse. It is one of the finest
houses in this area of Hove. Although it occupies a double plot with
a garden, it lends itself to the character of Hove, unlike flats that are
further sterilising the streets of Hove. It has been a family home to
politicians, foreign diplomats and their families and its destruction
would be a civic crime. A house and garden like this should be
conserved for the future. If the council aims to ensure a diversity of
population it is essential that housing be retained for larger families
to ensue the extended family concept blends with the nuclear
family concept that is supported by 1 – 2 bedroom flats.
2. Loss of privacy, with 18 windows on the northern side and 3 on the
west side having views of a neighbouring property, and overlooking
the main front bedroom window to a house opposite. It would
invade the privacy of an adjoining garden at No.53, which
regardless of cost could not adequately screened to prevent
overlooking.
3. The appearance of the block is not in keeping with the surrounding
detached houses. The south side has large windows and wide glass-
fronted balconies, which are not a feature of other properties in
Wilbury Avenue.
4. The proposed block would be significantly larger than surrounding
detached houses.
5. There would be an increase in noise and disturbance as the
development has 9 units, whereas at present just one family
occupies the site.
6. It would be an overdevelopment of the plot, in bulk and density.
Whilst the planning office will tend to view government
recommendations of 30-50 dwellings per hectare as a ratio to apply
to single applications, from a wider community perspective, this
ratio should be taken as a recommendation for a wider
geographical area than just a single property. The current dwelling
ratio in the neighbourhood is 67 per hectare, significantly in
advance of government maximum recommendations.
7. There would be loss of light and overmassing.
8. The plans are not to scale and this should be a minimum
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
requirement. There are inaccuracies, which show adjoining
properties are at an incorrect height. The space in front of the flats is
43m wide and it is not understood how two driveways and parking
spaces could fit into this space.
9. Loss of trees – the trees are vital to the concealment of the building.
The site ground plan shows that all but one will be removed.
Assurance is requested that the trees on the northern boundary
would be retained as they are home to hundreds of birds and
provide screening for an adjacent patio. The size of foundations
required would damage all the trees.
10. Possible flooding- The site is over an underground water area where
the sunken garden and old pond of the garden were built. This
construction would harm properties opposite who have had regular
and serious flooding problems. It is queried whether this issue has
been appropriately addressed. The Residents Association of Wilbury
Avenue East have requested that drainage issues be addressed as
part of the planning process, so as to make the developer aware of
the significant costs which cold be incurred to resolve the issue,
thereby enabling a true calculation to be made as to the costs of
the development. If the council does not exercise reasonable care
in consideration of this issue, residents affected would seek legal
compensation from the council for failing to act to prevent
damage to other property as the single result of this planning
application.
11. A neighbouring application at The Upper Drive was refused as not
being suitable for the area and because it would cause
overcrowding and loss of amenity to the area. The mass proposed
at No.51 will cause a similar block-to-block overcrowding especially
with flats on all four corners of the street.
12. There are several good schools in the area which makes the site
more suitable to providing family accommodation.
13. Inadequate parking. Neighbours suggest a range of 10, one and a
half per dwelling and 18 spaces would be more appropriate.
Sloping parking spaces would make it difficult for people with prams
and wheelchairs to manoeuvre.
14. Precedent – It is likely that if approved this proposal will result in the
submission further applications to convert or redevelop properties in
the area, which would result in a loss of family accommodation and
increase in limited occupancy dwellings. At present the mix of flats
and housing is suitable. Further development would alter this mix to
the detriment of existing residents. It would reduce the area to a
concrete jungle with a high overpopulation relative to its capacity.
Family households help to ensure a safe community by participating
in neighbourhood watch, use of public transport and supporting
other neighbourhood social responsibilities whereas occupiers of
one or two bedroom flats seldom participate in the same manner.
One letter states that members should be aware that if this planning
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
application is approved, at least 8 of the remaining 14 family home
owners have also confirmed they will consider forming a company
to sell all the properties to convert into a major flat development.
On the north side of Wilbury Avenue, this will mean the total stretch
of road will become rental flat units of one and two bedroom flats,
such as can be seen in the recent Palmeira development.
15. The side pathway, at 2 feet in width, unless fenced all the way
around would be a danger to children and elderly people
especially at night or in slippery conditions, and would provide poor
access for furniture removal and access for garden implements.
16. Additional pollution from cars.
17. Loss of wildlife.
18. Highway safety – The road is used to by-pass the traffic lights during
the peak periods and with such increased traffic must cause a
safety problem and additional noise nuisance. There is already
considerable difficulty in exiting the west end of the road to enter
The Drive which would worsen this sometimes dangerous problem.
19. The area is considered to be a conservation area which should
have some significance [The site does not, however, lie within such
an area.
20. Possible increase in crime and social unrest which will force families
to move out. In this stretch of the Avenue, there are already five
blocks of flats, some of which provide low cost housing for tenants.
The following issues have been raised which cannot be taken into
consideration in an assessment of the planning merits of the proposal.
1. It would only benefit the applicant through profit on the
development.
2. Dust and dirt, and possible pavement blockage by heavy lorries,
during construction One letter make reference to ill residents
suffering from asthma who would be particularly adversely affected
by the proposal.
3. Devaluation of neighbouring property.
4. The council is trying to claw more money into their coffers through
council tax by gaining 9 individual residents as opposed to just one
family home
Internal:
Traffic Manager: No objections in principle subject to alternative cycle
parking being made available in a more accessible place as an
alternative to the proposed siting at the rear of the garden area.
Private Sector Housing: No comments.
Arboriculturalist: No objections.
6 PLANNING POLICIES
Hove Borough Local Plan:
BE1 – General guidelines
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
BE18 - Refuse storage
BE41 – Landscaping
TR17 – Road safety
Brighton and Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft:
TR – Safe development (new policy)
TR12 - Cycle access and parking
SU2 - Efficiency of development in use of energy, water and materials
QD1 – Design
QD2 – Design - Key Principles
QD3 – Full and effective use of sites
QD4 - Design- Strategic Impact
QD15 – Landscape Design
QD16 - Trees and hedgerows
QD27 – Protection of amenity
HO3 - Dwelling type and size
HO13 – Accessible Housing and lifetime homes
7 CONSIDERATIONS
The main issues are the appropriateness of the proposed scheme,
having regard to the effect on neighbouring residential amenity, the
street scene, and highway safety.
Principle of the redevelopment:
No. 51 Wilbury Avenue is a two-storey detached dwelling set in the
eastern half of a double plot. Contrary to assertions of occupiers of
local properties, it does not lie within a conservation area. Whist this
section of the northern side of the road comprises predominantly
modest sized houses in modest grounds (nos. 47 –55, odds), there are
smaller semi detached properties on the southern side, and also at nos.
57 and 59 to the northern side. Furthermore, there are blocks of flats on
the eastern (Aynsley Court) and western end (White Lodge and
Devonshire Court) of the road. It cannot therefore be argued that
there is such a strong uniformity of character of street scene as to
preclude the principle of flat development. The block would be
significantly larger in footprint than surrounding properties, but the plot
is correspondingly larger, and it would be of similar height to
neighbouring properties. Neighbours have raised the issue that the
dwelling should be retained for family use, maintaining a diversity of
stock which in turn maintains the functioning of the community. It
cannot, however, be demonstrated that a development of two
bedroom flats would necessarily preclude multi-person and family
occupation. One neighbour has suggested that if permitted in
principle, the neighbours would wish to submit an application for the
remaining properties to the north to be redeveloped for flat purpose.
However, the appropriateness of similar schemes elsewhere on the
road would have to be determined on their own merits.
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
Concern has been expressed in respect of flooding of the grounds of
the property, which are noted to be in a natural dip in the road. The
garden is therefore prone to flooding if drainage channels become
blocked in periods of heavy rain. Whilst acknowledging that poor
drainage currently exists, the agent for the applicant is confident that
drainage issues can be resolved in a standard manner, without
resorting to any additional measures. However, to more fully address
this issue a drainage report has been commissioned by the applicant
and its findings will be reported to the meeting for information.
Effect on neighbouring residential amenity:
The originally submitted scheme was considered to unacceptable in
two main respects. Firstly, it was judged too close to the boundary with
53 Wilbury Avenue, which despite having main windows in the front
elevation, also has equally large additional windows to the lounge and
main bedroom which overlook the application site. The proposed
positioning of the flank of the new building would have lead to
significant overshadowing and loss of outlook. The side elevation has
been repositioned to a distance m from the boundary, approximately
6.4m from the lounge window to No.53 which would ameliorate this
effect. Secondly, the original layout would have resulted in each of the
three flats on three floors having lounge and bedroom window in the
rear elevation. Although no overlooking would occur at ground floor
level due to the boundary screening, this would have resulted in the
upper 12 windows being able to view the neighbouring garden. Whilst
it is accepted that they would be no closer to the neighbours than
windows in the existing house, the resultant increase in level of
overlooking, particularly from the lounge areas, would have been
significant and unacceptable. The revised scheme reduces the
number of rear-facing windows to main bedrooms and en-suites, the
latter to which would be obscurely glazed, resulting in two floors of
three bedroom windows per floor, which is judged to be acceptable.
Neighbours consider that nine flats would generate an unacceptable
level of noise and disturbance. This could not be demonstrated given
that the property will be of sufficient distance from neighbouring
properties. The majority of activity would occur around the main
entrance to the front which is centrally located within the site, and
parking area. There is additional side entrance serving the three
easternmost flats and this would not be detrimental to the occupier of
No.53.
The site is currently bounded by mature vegetation, most of which
should be retained in the development. This would serves three specific
objectives. It would help integrate the development within the existing
landscape, provide screening from neighbouring properties at ground
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
floor level, and further maintain the wildlife corridor which neighbours
have identified. Existing landscaping to the northern and western site
boundaries should be enhanced. The landscaping strip to the eastern
side can be widened so as to permit a 2m wide planting area, and this
can be secured through the submission as an amended plan.
Effect on the street scene:
The agent for the applicant has submitted a drawing of the building in
the context of the adjoining properties. This demonstrates that whilst
inevitably twice the width of adjoining properties (as it occupies a
double plot) and with second floor windows at a slightly higher level
than first floor of adjoining properties, the ridge height would be
similarly only slightly higher and the building would, as a consequence,
blend in with the existing street scene. Neighbouring residents have
queried the accuracy of this depiction, but re-examination has found it
to be broadly correct. As stated above, there are examples of other
blocks of flats in close proximity, and notwithstanding the location of a
number of detached houses in the vicinity, the road is represented by
a variety of house styles.
Highway Safety Issues:
The Transport Engineer raises no objections to the proposed number of
car parking spaces, their specification and location. An additional 9
cars would not add to pollution levels, and the Transport Engineer has
not identified any increase in hazard from a more intensive use of road
junctions in the locality. The parking spaces would not be at a great
gradient, and therefore not be appreciably difficult to access by less
mobile people, as asserted by one objector.
Conclusion:
The principle of the redevelopment of the site for flats is acceptable,
bearing in mind the location of other blocks in the road, and the
presence of a variety of differing house styles. The original application
would have overmassed the adjacent property at No. 53 and lead to
overlooking of properties to the rear. Both these effects have since
been mitigated by moving the building away from the boundary, and
reducing the number of windows to primary rooms facing the rear. The
development would be of a size, bulk which should integrate in the
surroundings without detriment to neighbouring amenity nor the
character of the area. It is therefore recommended that Planning
Permission be granted.
8 EQUALITIES IMPLICATIONS
The flats will be fully accessible for disabled persons. Part M of the
Building Regulations will apply.
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
No: BH2004/01159/FP Ward: SOUTH PORTSLADE
Address: 30/31 Station Road
Proposal: Erection of two storey, two bedroom flat above existing shop &
first floor commercial unit.
Officer: Nicola Slater, tel: 292114 Received
Date:
08 April 2004
Con Area: N/A Expiry Date: 03 June 2004
Agent: N/A
Applicant
:
Lee Clutterbuck, 30/31 Station Road, Portslade
1 RECOMMENDATION
Refuse planning permission for the following reasons:
1. The proposal would not only represent an overdevelopment of the
site to the visual detriment of the surrounding area, by reason of its
scale, height and excessive bulk relative to surrounding properties
but would also represent a poor design by virtue of the lack of
alignment and symmetry on the proposed rear elevation. The
proposal would therefore constitute an incongruous, overbearing
and unsightly feature, contrary to policies BE1 of the Hove Borough
Local Plan and QD1, QD2 and QD3 of the Brighton and Hove Local
Plan Second Deposit Draft.
2. The proposal represents an unneighbourly form of development,
detrimental to the amenity of neighbouring occupiers due to the
increased bulk of the property resulting in overshadowing and loss
of privacy from the balconies at second and third floor level.
Furthermore, the increased bulk created by the extensions will
create an oppressive sense of enclosure for members of the pubic
using the footpath linking Station Road and Gordon Road. The
proposal is therefore contrary to policies BE1 of the Hove Borough
Local Plan and QD1, QD2, QD3 and QD27 of the Brighton and Hove
Local Plan Second Deposit Draft.
3. The proposal is contrary to the objectives of current policy, as there
is no provision made for refuse storage and secure cycle storage.
The proposal is therefore contrary to policies BE1 and TR16 of the
Hove Borough Local Plan and TR12 and SU2 of the Brighton and
Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft.
Informatives:
1. This decision is based on drawing nos. GA/0400/100, GA/0400/101,
GA/0400/102, GA/0400/150, GA/0400/110, GA/0400/111,
GA/0400/112, GA/0400/113, GA/0400/114, GA/0400/151 and
SK/0400/000 submitted on 8 April 2004.
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
2 THE SITE
The application site relates to a two-storey property positioned on the
west side of Station Road adjacent to the footpath linking Station Road
and Gordon Road, approximately 30 metres north of the junction with
Franklin Road. The existing building comprises of two retail shops (A1
and A3) at ground floor level, with commercial office space at first floor
level, accessed from the rear service yard. The site lies within the
primary shopping area of Portslade, as identified on the Hove Borough
Local Plan, and also falls within the prime shopping frontage of the
Boundary Road/Station Road District Shopping Centre on the Second
Deposit Local Plan.
3 RELEVANT HISTORY
Planning permission was granted in January 1975 for the change of use
of the first floor living accommodation (with entrance through existing
shop) to display and storage in connection with existing jewellers on
the ground floor.
Planning permission was granted in August 1983 for 31 Station Road for
the change of use to shop for retail of electrical plumbing/heating
accessories and advertisement consent was granted in August 1983 for
two illuminated fascia signs.
Planning permission was granted in January 1991 for 30 Station Road
for the change of use of the ground floor from watch repairs (Class A1)
to sandwich bar (Class A3), internal alterations and new shopfront.
4 THE APPLICATION
Planning permission is sought to construct a two-storey extension
above the existing shop and first floor commercial unit to create a two
bedroom residential flat. Access would be from an internal staircase,
built three storeys high, to the side of the existing building with access
onto the footpath linking Station Road and Gordon Road. A new
internal access for the first floor commercial office space is also
proposed, with access from the rear service yard.
5 CONSULTATIONS
External:
Neighbours:
Letters of objection have been received from the Vale Park Residents
Association and the occupiers of 37 Franklin Road, 23 Norway Street
and 67 Vale Road raising the following points:
- a site visit is requested
- the height of the proposed application is out of sync and character
with other buildings, businesses and residential properties
surrounding the property;
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
- the height of the development is disproportionate to the nearby
surroundings;
- there are no buildings in the surrounding area that are the height of
this proposal and it could set a worrying precedent;
- The Tall Buildings scheme for Brighton and Hove SPG Note 15
considers this area to be a low-rise residential and commercial
area;
- the development will be cramped and lead to an overdeveloped
appearance in a commercial area;
- privacy of people in the surrounding area will be invaded;
- no parking has been allocated in a known area which has terrible
parking problems;
- proximity to nearby business units, which will affect people living in
this accommodation and residential amenity for future occupiers;
One letter of support has been received from the occupier of 13
Franklin Road, providing concerns are taking into account of
additional traffic and the existing parking problems, raising the
following points:
- developing this new well planned home, unlike the Gordon Road
site, can only be a good thing, particularly as Brighton and Hove
has such an acute housing shortage;
- bringing people into the Boundary Road/Station Road area can
help to regenerate the area;
Internal:
Environmental Health:
The plans submitted with the application do not show any facilitates for
waste storage for the proposed two-bedroom flat. If planning
permission is granted, the applicant should incorporate adequate
soundproofing into the construction of the flat to minimise the
transmission of noise through the party wall.
Traffic Manager:
Secure, undercover cycle parking should be provided, otherwise no
objections.
Private Sector Housing:
No observations.
6 PLANNING POLICIES
Hove Borough Local Plan:
BE1 - General Development
S4 - Uses in Primary Shopping Frontages
TR16 - Cycle and motor cycle parking
Brighton and Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft:
SU2 - Efficiency of development in the use of energy, water and
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
materials
QD1 - Development Design
QD2 - Neighbourhood Design
QD3 - Design – Efficient and Effective use of sites
QD4 - Design – Strategic Impact
QD14 - Extensions and Alterations
QD27 - Protection of Amenity
HO - Provision of private amenity space
HO3 - Dwelling type and size
HO4 - Dwelling Densities
HO6 - Car free housing
SR6 - Town and District Shopping Centres
TR16 - Cycle Access and Parking
7 CONSIDERATIONS
The determining issues in this application relate to firstly, whether the
proposed development would have a detrimental impact on
neighbouring amenity, the impact of the proposal in relation to the
existing building and surrounding street scene, and the suitability of the
proposed accommodation, having regard to its location in a
commercial area.
The site lies within the primary shopping frontage of the Station Road /
Boundary Road District Shopping Centre. This allocation seeks to retain
existing retail uses and since the application does not involve the loss of
any retail use there is no breach of this policy.
Impact on the street scene:
The surrounding area comprises of a mixture of commercial units,
varying in style, scale and height along both Station and Boundary
Road. The existing two-storey property forms the end of a terrace
comprising of three storey properties. The property immediately north
of the footpath linking Station Road with Gordon Road is single storey
with subsequent properties raising to two storey in height. The
application site tapers around the corner of the footpath linking Station
Road and Gordon Road with the proposed access for the flats leading
from this footpath.
Whilst, the proposed two-storey extension above the existing property is
likely to align with the other properties in the parade, which are three
storey with pitched roofs above, the proposed extension is, however,
likely to appear overdominant in the street scene. This is in part
because the application site has a much smaller frontage facing onto
Station Road in comparison with the other properties in the parade,
which continues to taper into the footpath linking Station Road with
Gordon Road. The additional two-storey extension is likely therefore to
appear overdominant and cramped. Furthermore, at present the
application site acts as a “bridge” between the three-storey high
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
properties to the south and the single storey property to the north of
the footpath linking Station Road and Gordon Road. The increased
height of the property will therefore appear overbearing in relation to
the neighbouring properties to the north and create a stark contrast in
the heights of the buildings in the surrounding area.
The proposed flat will be accessed from the footpath linking Station
Road with Gordon Road through a proposed covered staircase to the
side of the existing property. The side extension will match the height
of the proposed two-storey addition. The footpath linking Station Road
and Gordon Road is approximately two metres wide, and the
proposed extension together with the increased height of the existing
building will appear oppressive and overdominant for people using the
footpath.
The extension is proposed to have a pitched roof at the front with a flat
roof at the rear. Large aluminium framed doors with small balconies
are proposed at both second and third floor level. The creation of a
combined pitched and flat roof is out of character with the traditional
pitched roofs on adjacent properties and will therefore represent an
incongruous feature detrimental to the appearance and character of
the street scene. The installation of large doors at second and third
floor level allowing access onto small balconies creates a top heavy
rear elevation in relation to the existing first and ground floor windows.
Much of the rear yard will be built upon as a result of the proposal,
leaving limited space for the existing refuse storage required for the
existing retail and commercial units at the site as well as the necessary
refuse and cycle storage for the proposed residential unit. It is
questionable whether sufficient space will be retained whilst
maintaining a suitable access from the rear for the commercial and
retail units, particularly since this is the only access available for the first
floor offices. The proposal is therefore contrary to the objectives of
policies SU2 and TR12 as there is no provision made for refuse and
cycle storage.
Impact of amenity:
Notwithstanding the fact that the site is located in a predominantly
commercial area there are a number of residential units, principally
above retail units at first floor level in the surrounding area. The
increased height of the property is likely to have a detrimental impact
on the occupiers of the first floor flat of no. 28A Station Road and the
occupiers of the residential units to the south of the application site in
terms of overshadowing and the increased building bulk from the
extension. Furthermore, the balconies at second and third floor level
will have an elevated position over neighbouring properties creating a
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
problem of overlooking and loss of privacy.
Conclusion:
The proposed extension is of poor design and will create an
overbearing and overdominant feature to the visual detriment of the
area. Furthermore, the increased height of the property and extension
is likely to have a detrimental impact on neighbouring amenity in terms
of overshadowing. The application is therefore recommended for
refusal.
8 EQUALITIES IMPLICATIONS
The unit would be required to conform to Part M of the Building
Regulations.
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
No: BH2004/00975/FP Ward: SOUTH PORTSLADE
Address: 37 Vale Road
Proposal: Extension to front of main building in existing car park area.
Officer: Paul Earp, tel: 292193 Received
Date:
27 February 2004
Con Area: N/A Expiry Date: 18 May 2004
Agent: N/A
Applicant
:
C & S Nameplate Co Ltd, 37 Vale Road
1 RECOMENDATION
Grant Planning Permission subject to the following conditions and
informatives:
1. 01.01 Full Planning.
2. 03.02C Materials to match.
3. 03.02 Soundproofing of building.
Reason: Standard- plus ‘and to comply with policies EM9 of the
Hove Borough Local Plan and QD27 of the Brighton and Hove
Local Plan Second Deposit Draft.
4. 03.10 Soundproofing of plant/machinery.
Reason: Standard- plus ‘and to comply with policies EM9 of the
Hove Borough Local Plan and QD27 of the Brighton and Hove
Local Plan Second Deposit Draft.
5. The doors and windows of the extension hereby approved shall be
kept closed at all times whilst the machinery is in operation.
Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the occupiers of
neighbouring properties and to comply with policies EM9 of the
Hove Borough Local Plan and QD27 of the Brighton and Hove
Local Plan Second Deposit Draft.
Informatives:
1. This decision is based on drawing number 37VR/041 submitted on
23 March 2004.
2. Mindful of condition 4 above, the applicant may wish to
investigate alternative forms of ventilating the extension hereby
approved. Any mechanical extraction would be subject to
obtaining further planning approval.
3. This decision to grant Planning Permission has been taken having
regard to the policies and proposals in the Hove Borough Local
Plan and Brighton & Hove Local Plan Second Deposit set out
below, and to all relevant material considerations:
Hove Borough Local Plan:
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
BE1 General guidelines
TR26 Car parking standards
EM9 Extensions to premises in employment generating uses
Brighton and Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft:
QD5 Design – street frontages
QD27 protection of amenity
TR17 Car parking standards
SU2 Sustainability
EM6 Small industrials and business
2 THE SITE
The application relates to a two storey light industrial building on the
north side of the street, opposite the junction with Norway Street. The
adjacent and building opposite are commercial; properties in Norway
Street are residential.
3 RELEVANT HISTORY
BH2003/03318/FP - siting of prefab building in car park, approved
25.11.03.
4 THE APPLICATION
The application is for:
- Infilling of part of the ground floor undercroft to enlarge factory. The
area, measuring 4.3m wide x 7.8m deep (floor area of 34m2), is
currently used for the parking of 3 vehicles,
- Details: 2 windows on west elevation, double doors on east
elevation.
- Materials: walls – blockwork finished with facing brick to match
existing.
- Use: to house new machinery to make nameplates.
- Employment: expansion of business will increase staff by 3 to 4 jobs,
from 10 to
13/14.
5 CONSULTATIONS
External:
Neighbours: 67 Vale Road; Vale Park Residents Association: Object to
the proposal for the following reasons:
- Request that a member of Vale Park Residents Association address
Planning Committee.
- Repetitive noise would impact on residents due to the close
proximity to residential properties.
- No reference is made to ventilation of the building. Should doors
and windows be opened during hot weather then excessive noise
levels will emanate the site.
- Request rigorous controls on noise and ventilation systems to
prevent excessive repetitive noise impacting on residents.
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
- Loss of car parking area will result in more car parked on the
highway where parking is already a problem.
- Request Committee site visit given the serious safety and
disturbance issues.
Internal:
Traffic Manager: No objection.
Environmental Health: Consultants have carried out a noise assessment
which indicates that the noise from the new machinery is predicted to
be below day-time background noise levels. Based on this information
it is highly unlikely that the occupiers of the nearest residential
properties will be affected by additional noise from the premises.
However it would be prudent to require, by condition, soundproofing
of the building and plant/machinery (this would also control possible
nuisance from vibration and from additional equipment such as air
handling extract systems).
Economic Development: Welcome the creation of additional jobs.
6 PLANNING POLICIES
Hove Borough Local Plan:
BE1 - General guidelines
TR26 - Car parking standards
EM9 - Extensions to premises in employment generating uses
Brighton and Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft:
QD5 - Design – street frontages
QD27 - Protection of amenity
TR17 - Car parking standards
SU2 - Sustainability
EM6 - Small industrials and business
7 CONSIDERATIONS
The application follows approval granted November 2003 for the siting
of a prefab building of similar size in the same location. Permission was
granted for the siting of the temporary structure for a period of 5 years
only as a quick measure to allow the business to expand, but with an
informative advising that in the long term the applicants should
consider a brick infill to the premises.
This application is for a brick infill, and has been made as it was found
that the prefab could not be adequately soundproofed, as required
by condition forming part of that planning approval.
Planning policies permit the expansion of existing employment uses
providing there is no adverse environmental impact such as increased
traffic, noise and fumes, the use would not be detrimental to the
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
amenities of neighbouring properties or the general character of the
area and has satisfactory car parking provision. New development
should present an attractive street frontage.
The premises consist of a small industrial unit, currently employing 10
people making nameplates and labels. This two storey building is
situated between commercial properties and backs onto the railway
line. The ground floor is set back from the road with a car park to the
front, which is under the first floor overhang. This is the only place where
the premises could be extended. The proposed infill on part of the car
parking area to house a new machine would create a further 3 to 4
jobs.
The car parking area (approximately 14 spaces) is under-utilised and
the Traffic Engineer is of the opinion that the extension could be
accommodated and sufficient parking spaces would still remain.
Regarding appearance, situated beneath the first floor overhang, the
infill, to match in materials the existing building, structure would not be
unduly prominent, nor detract from the appearance of the building or
street scene.
Environmental Health consider, with conditions relating to
soundproofing, vibration, ventilation and to ensure that doors and
windows are kept closed, that the concerns of the occupiers of the
area relating to noise and disturbance would be satisfactorily
addressed.
Conclusion:
It is considered that the business could be expanded as proposed
without detriment to the area.
8 EQUALITIES IMPLICATIONS
The proposed building would have level threshold suitable for disabled
access.
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
No: BH2004/01020/FP Ward: SOUTH PORTSLADE
Address: 6 Vallensdean Cottages
Proposal: Erection of single terraced house.
Officer: Steve Walker, tel: 292337 Received
Date:
10 March 2004
Con Area: N/A Expiry Date: 25 May 2004
Agent: Alan R. Wood, 75 Westbourne Street, Hove
Applicant
:
Messrs R Tingley & C Sawyer, c/o Alan Wood, 75 Westbourne
Street
Hove
1 RECOMMENDATION
Grant Planning Permission subject to the following conditions:-
1. Full Planning.
2. 02.06C Satisfactory refuse storage.
3. 06.02C Cycle parking details to be submitted.
Informatives:
1. This decision is based on drawing nos. 1-5 submitted on 10 March
2004.
2. This decision to grant Planning Permission has been taken having
regard to the policies and proposals in the Hove Borough Local Plan
and Brighton & Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft set out below,
and to all relevant material considerations:
Hove Borough Local Plan:
BE1 – General guidelines
BE18 - Refuse storage
BE41 – Landscaping
TR16 – Cycle and motor cycle parking
TR17 – Road safety
Brighton and Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft:
TR – Safe development (new policy)
TR12 - Cycle access and parking
SU2 - Efficiency of development in use of energy, water and
materials
QD1 – Design
QD2 – Design - Key Principles
QD3 – Full and effective use of sites
QD4 - Design- Strategic Impact
QD15 – Landscape Design
QD16 - Trees and hedgerows
QD27 – Protection of amenity
HO3 - Dwelling type and size
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
HO13 – Accessible Housing and lifetime homes
Supplementary Planning Guidance on Roof Alterations and
Extensions (No.1)
2 THE SITE
This application relates to land at the side of 6 Vallensdean Cottages a
terrace of 6 cottages along a narrow road off Hangleton Lane to the
rear of Dean Close and Fairfield Crescent. The south eastern site
boundary adjoins 4 Dean Close, and the site slopes steeply upwards to
rear gardens and garages to properties on Fairway Crescent to the
south west.
3 RELEVANT HISTORY
In December 2003 an application was submitted for the erection of a
pair of semi-detached house on the same site. This was withdrawn in
February 2004 (ref. BH2004/00052/FP)
4 THE APPLICATION
The application is for the demolition of a small outbuilding attached to
the house, and a larger detached outbuilding, and their replacement
with an addition to the existing terrace to form a further single
dwellinghouse, comprising living room, kitchen, hall and WC on the
ground floor with two bedrooms and a bathroom on the first floor and a
further bedroom in the roofspace. Windows would be placed in the
front and rear elevation, and an additional small dormer is proposed in
the front elevation. The walls would be finished in decorated render and
clay roof tiles would be provided, both to match the remainder of the
terrace. It would have a modest size front garden with a car
hardstanding and small rear garden area, similar to neighbouring
properties in the terrace.
5 CONSULTATIONS
External:
Neighbours: The occupiers of neighbouring properties have been
consulted on the proposal. Letters of objection have been received
from 3 Vallensdean Cottages and 1 Dean Gardens
Objections are on the following grounds:-
1. The only access to No. 6 is via a narrow drive. There is concern that
trying to access the property via this driveway will result in damage to
neighbouring property.
2. The removal of an original flint wall may cause damage.
3. Main drains run under the driveway and may be susceptible to
damage by heavy vehicles.
4. The old barn which was originally a laundry room for the Old Manor
House would have to be destroyed and as this is part of the
character of the cottages, it should be retained.
5. Parking is very limited in the area and more vehicles can only worsen
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
the situation.
Concerns raised in respect of noise and disturbance to neighbouring
occupiers during the construction period cannot be taken into
consideration in an assessment of the planning merits of the proposal.
Internal:
Traffic Manager: No objections subject to the provision of secure
undercover cycle parking facilities.
6 PLANNING POLICIES
Hove Borough Local Plan:
BE1 – General guidelines
BE18 - Refuse storage
BE41 – Landscaping
TR16 – Cycle and motor cycle parking
TR17 – Road safety
Brighton and Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft:
TR – Safe development (new policy)
TR12 - Cycle access and parking
SU2 - Efficiency of development in use of energy, water and materials
QD1 – Design
QD2 – Design - Key Principles
QD3 – Full and effective use of sites
QD4 - Design- Strategic Impact
QD15 – Landscape Design
QD16 - Trees and hedgerows
QD27 – Protection of amenity
HO3 - Dwelling type and size
HO13 – Accessible Housing and lifetime homes
Supplementary Planning Guidance on Roof Alterations and Extensions
(No.1)
7 CONSIDERATIONS
The main considerations are the suitability of the proposed site to
accommodate further residential development, having regard to the
effect on the existing terrace of cottages, the effect on the amenity of
occupiers of neighbouring properties and highway safety.
The exiting cottages, while contributing to the character of the area,
have no particular intrinsic merit. There is therefore no objection to the
principle of adding to the terrace either by an extension or freestanding
addition, although continuation of the terrace as is now proposed is the
preferable option. The proposed dormer window would be consistent
with other dormer additions in the terrace, and would comply with
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
Supplementary Planning Guidance. Similarly the property would have
adequate amenity space consistent with neighbouring properties. Whilst
many letters of objection received in respect of the original application
have referred to the merit of the outbuilding which would have to be
demolished, the Conservation Officer considers this late 19th century
building to have no particular merit to worthy its retention, and does not
consider that Listing would be likely.
The development of the site is complicated however, by significant
changes of level to the front, rear and sides of the site. The row of
cottages is on the same level following the contour of the hill, with
significant fall to the land to the east and significant rise to the west. The
existing outbuilding adjoins the end of No. 6 at the same level. Beyond
this structure to the south, there is a raised garden area which adjoins
the outbuilding at eaves level, thus significantly higher. This in turn
adjoins the garden of 4 Dean Close at the same level. The property at 4
Dean Close is significantly lower than its own garden area, resulting in
the first floor windows overlooking the garden area as if at ground floor
level, the true ground floor having a small patio area in front of the
windows before the significant rise in land level. The original proposal for
two semi detached dwellings submitted earlier this year would have
resulted in the gable to the proposed terrace being adjacent to the
garden area of 4 Dean Close with the upper floor windows looking
obliquely across the garden in very close proximity and across to the
upper floor windows of that property. This would have been be
unacceptable in amenity terms and the relationship of the end new
dwelling and close proximity of the neighbouring garden would have
given a cramped and overdeveloped appearance, although it would
not have caused undue overmassing or loss of light (contrary to the
views of the occupier), because of the relative height of the
neighbouring garden. The revised proposal retains 6.8m width of garden
between the side gable and the garden to 4 Dean Close thus restricting
any undesirable overlooking.
The Traffic Engineer commented that the original development of two
houses would be likely to increase the need for on-street parking in
Hangleton Lane. Parking would be required for both properties as should
secure, undercover cycle parking the revised proposal for a single
house with car space is acceptable, although a secure cycle space is
still required. Neighbours had originally raised concerns in respect of loss
of privacy due to an increase in passing traffic. It is not considered that
existing privacy levels would be affected in this way. Additionally, no
access is proposed to the west of the site from Fairway Crescent, in line
with the wishes expressed in comments raised in respect of the previous
application, by occupiers of properties on this road. It should be noted
that the applicant owns the access road to Hangleton Lane, with rights
of way granted to other property owners.
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
Finally, comments have been raised in respect of protection of walls
and the stability of surrounding ground. The application indicates no
intention to affect walls other than possible works to the retaining wall to
the side garden, which will be kept. The agent is aware of these
comments which must be addressed through the Building Regulations.
Conclusion:
The addition of a further dwelling in the form of the continuation of the
terrace would be visually acceptable, Whilst the application site is
located in a sensitive position on a slope, with significant changes in
level all around the site, it is considered that the proposal would not
affect the amenities of the neighbouring properties and would not result
in a cramped overdeveloped appearance. It is therefore
recommended that planning permission be granted.
8 EQUALITIES IMPLICATIONS
The new dwelling would have to meet Part M of the Building
Regulations.
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
No: BH2004/01022/FP Ward: STANFORD
Address: 5 Onslow Road
Proposal: Construction of 2 storey side extension and first floor rear
extension.
Officer: Nicola Slater, tel: 292114 Received
Date:
26 March 2004
Con Area: N/A Expiry Date: 21 May 2004
Agent: Turner Associates , 115A Church Road, Hove
Applicant
:
Mrs Marks, 5 Onslow Road
1 RECOMMENDATION
Grant planning permission, subject to the following conditions:
1. 01.01 Full Planning.
2. The windows on the west-facing elevation shall be obscure glazed
and fixed shut, and thereafter permanently retained as such.
Reason: To safeguard the privacy of the occupiers of the adjoining
property and to comply with policies BE1 of the Hove Borough
Local Plan and QD14 and QD27 of the Brighton and Hove Local
Plan Second Deposit Draft.
3. 03.02C Materials to Match.
Informatives:
1. This decision is based on drawing nos. TA1126/01, TA1126/02,
TA1126/03, submitted on 26 March 2004; TA1126/04 submitted on
15 April 2004 and TA1126/05 A, TA1126/06 A, TA1126/07 A submitted
on 25 May 2004.
2. This decision to grant Planning Permission has been taken having
regard to the policies and proposals in the Hove Borough Local
Plan/Brighton & Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft set out
below, and to all relevant material considerations:
Hove Borough Local Plan:
BE1 General Development
Brighton and Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft:
QD1- Development design
QD2 - Neighbourhood design
QD14 - Extensions and alterations
QD27 - Protection of amenity
2 THE SITE
The application relates to a two-storey detached property located on
the south side of Onslow Road, approximately 110 metres west of the
junction with Dyke Road. The property has an existing sun lounge to
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
the rear and a very long-established two storey addition on its east
side, incorporating a garage.
3 RELEVANT HISTORY
Planning permission was granted in 1963 (Ref: M/10083/63) for an
extension to the garage and construction of a sun lounge to the rear
and planning permission was granted in 1968 (Ref: M/I36II/68) for a
two-storey extension to provide an additional bathroom, bedroom and
utility area.
4 THE APPLICATION
Planning permission is sought for the construction of a two-storey side
extension to the west elevation and a first floor rear extension. The first
floor extension would be built upon the footprint of an existing single
storey addition, which forms the rear of the garage to the east side of
the property. The total depth of this extension is 1.5 metres, with a
width of 3.3 metres.
As originally submitted the two-storey side extension would have had a
total depth of 10.8 metres, projecting 3.3 metres beyond the rear wall
of the existing property with a width of 2.5 metres, maintaining a one
metre distance between the application site and the boundary.
However, this has since been amended, reducing the extent of the
side extension at first floor level along the west elevation to 9.2 metres,
1.7 metres beyond the rear wall of the property. The ground floor
element will project to the same point as originally proposed. On the
north facing elevation, the proposed ground floor window has been
lengthened to align with other windows positioned on the front
elevation.
5 CONSULTATIONS
External:
Neighbours: An objection has been received from the occupier of 7
Onslow Road on the following grounds:
- the application increases the floor area of the property by 30%
- the two first floor bedrooms will overlook the terrace and garden
- the owner has no intention of proceeding with the alterations
applied for. The application is solely to enhance the value of the
property if and when it is sold.
- this is just another example of the current flood of applications
seeking to increase the housing/population density in this area
which, if granted, will destroy the character of the whole area.
6 PLANNING POLICIES
Hove Borough Local Plan:
BE1 - General Development
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
Brighton and Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft:
QD1- Development design
QD2 - Neighbourhood design
QD14 - Extensions and alterations
QD27 - Protection of amenity
7 CONSIDERATIONS
The determining issues in this case relate to whether the proposal
would have an adverse impact on the amenities of the occupiers of
the neighbouring properties and the visual impact of the proposed
extension on the existing property and the street scene.
The proposed two-storey side extension is sited in the area to the side
of the property bringing the property closer to the neighbouring
property to the west (no. 7 Onslow Road), but maintains a one metre
distance between the extension and the boundary of no. 7 Onslow
Road. Whilst there are two east facing windows in the side elevation of
no. 7 Onslow Road facing the proposed extension, these windows are
already overshadowed by the existing property and as a result the
proposed extension is not likely to have an additional loss of light to the
side windows compared to the existing property. As originally
submitted the extension was proposed to project beyond the existing
rear wall of the existing property by 3.3 metres. The 3.3 metres
projecting from the rear wall of the property would have appeared
overly bulky in relation to the neighbouring property and has been
reduced to a depth of 1.7 metres at first floor level, whilst extending to
the same extent at ground floor level. The proposed extension to the
west elevation is not considered likely to have a detrimental impact on
neighbouring amenity in terms of loss of light or overshadowing.
Concerns have been raised by the neighbouring occupier in regard to
overlooking, however, no windows are proposed at first floor level on
the west elevation, and the two ground floor windows can be
conditioned to be obscure glazed. The north and south windows on
the extension are not likely to be different to other north and south
facing windows on the existing property.
The first floor rear extension is proposed to be constructed above an
existing single storey lean to, which forms part of the garage. It will be
the same width as the existing two storey element and will have a flat
roof to match. There is a first floor west facing window on the side
elevation of no. 3 Onslow Road, however, the proposed addition does
not project as far as this window and is therefore unlikely to have a
detrimental impact on the occupiers of no. 3 Onslow Road. This is
further reinforced by the one metre distance, which separates the
extension and the boundary between no. 3 and no. 5 Onslow Road.
In design terms the proposed two-storey side extension has been
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
designed to match the existing roofline of the property and whilst does
not appear subservient to the main building, since the property is
detached it is not likely to unbalance the property as in the case of
semi-detached properties. The proposed rear extension will be flat
roofed to match the existing two-storey extension on the east side of
the property, and is considered acceptable. The size and style of the
ground floor north facing window on the proposed extension to the
west elevation has been amended to align with other ground floor
windows on the front elevation.
Conclusion:
To conclude, the extension is not likely to have a detrimental impact
on neighbouring properties in terms of overshadowing or overlooking
and is not likely to detract from the existing property and the
surrounding area in terms of design. The proposal is now considered
acceptable in relation the objectives of policies BE1, QD1 and QD14
and is therefore recommended for approval.
8 EQUALITIES IMPLICATIONS
None identified.
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
No: BH2004/01105/FP Ward: WISH
Address: 60 Portland Villas
Proposal: Demolition of outbuilding; erection of first floor and single storey
rear extension.
Officer: Louise Kent, tel: 292198 Received
Date:
22 March 2004
Con. Area N/A Expiry Date: 16 May 2004
Agent: Weald Designs, Ranelagh, St Johns Road, Crowborough
Applicant
:
Mr and Mrs Vance, 60 Portland Villas
1 RECOMMENDATION
Grant planning permission, subject to the following conditions:
1. 01.01A Full Planning Permission.
2. 03.02C Materials to Match Non-Conservation Area (H).
Informative:
1. This decision is based on drawings received on 22 March 2004.
2. This decision to grant Planning Permission has been taken having
regard to the policies and proposals in the Hove Borough Local Plan
and Brighton and Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft set out
below, and to all relevant material considerations.
Hove Borough Local Plan:
BE1 General Guidelines
BE19 Extension Materials
Brighton & Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft:
QD1 Development Design
QD14 Extensions and Alterations
QD27 Protection of Amenity
2 THE SITE
The site is a double-fronted detached house on the western side of
Portland Villas, between Portland Road and New Church Road. It is in a
residential area of mainly semi-detached houses, and is not in a
conservation area. The garden backs onto the rear elevation of 1
Portland Lane, and continues through to Portland Lane.
3 RELEVANT HISTORY
None.
4 THE APPLICATION
The application is to demolish a single-storey outbuilding adjoining the
existing kitchen, and extend the kitchen by 2.5m into the garden. A first
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
floor extension over the southern corner of the existing rear ground floor
is also proposed.
5 CONSULTATIONS
External:
Neighbours: The neighbours at 58 Portland Villas have objected on the
grounds that:
- they will suffer overshadowing and lack of privacy, and
- there will be significant reduction in light into their dining-room and
kitchen
6 PLANNING POLICIES
Hove Borough Local Plan:
BE1 - General Guidelines
BE19 - Extension Materials
Brighton and Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft:
QD1 - Design: Quality of Design and Design Statements
QD14 - Extensions and Alterations
QD27 - Protection of Amenity
SU2 – Efficiency of development in the use of energy, water and
materials
SPGBH1- Supplementary Planning Guide Note 1 – Roof Alterations and
Extension
7 CONSIDERATIONS
The main considerations relate to the effects of the proposal on the
appearance of the property, and the effects on neighbouring residential
amenity.
The proposal seeks to demolish an existing outhouse at the rear, and
extend the kitchen by 2.5m into the garden, to a width of 6.1m. The
existing outhouse extends 4.8m into the garden, with one door at the
side nearest 62 Portland Villas. As the proposed extension only extends
2.5m, and there are no windows facing 62 Portland Villas, it is not
considered that there will be any overlooking or loss of privacy. A new
side door onto the side passage is proposed in the centre of the
northern side elevation, but as there is a brick wall at the boundary with
62 Portland Villas, it is not considered that there will be any loss of
privacy.
The pitched roof of the proposed kitchen extension will be 3.7m high
under the first floor windows, sloping to 2.5m high. The extension will
have four French windows, placed at the furthest end from 62 Portland
Villas, which will face the blank rear elevation of 1 Portland Lane, so
overlooking cannot occur. Two rooflights are centred over the French
windows. The southern end of the extension will have windows facing
one window on the ground floor of 58 Portland Villas. As the building is
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
7.0m away, with a fence approximately 1.8m high at the boundary, it is
considered an acceptable distance and would not cause any
detrimental loss of privacy or light.
This application also proposes to raise the roof at the rear elevation from
a sloping roof to one with two gables, similar to the front elevation. The
footprint of the existing building would not alter, and smaller windows
would replace the existing dormer window and landing window. These
windows would face the blank rear elevation of 1 Portland Lane, so
there would be no loss of privacy. The new gables at the rear would be
considered in character with the villa, and would not detract from its
appearance, or neighbouring residential amenity.
The proposed first floor extension seeks to demolish an existing bathroom
and build out a new bedroom at first floor level to match the northern
side of the rear elevation. The footprint of the building will not be
altered, and no windows will face the nearest neighbour at 58 Portland
Villas. There will not, therefore be any overlooking or loss of privacy from
the first floor extension. The northern side elevation of 58 Portland Villas
has no windows, so there will be no loss of light from the proposed
extension. It is not considered that there would be a noticeable
overshadowing effect, as the extension does not extend further than the
existing ground floor, or the rear building line of 58 Portland Villas before
their rear two-storey extension.
Approval is therefore recommended.
8 EQUALITIES IMPLICATIONS
None identified.
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
No: BH2004/00894/FP Ward: WISH
Address: Part unit A, School Road
Proposal: Removal of condition 1 of permission BH2003/01666/FP in order
to make permanent use of part of Unit A for D2 sports and
leisure, 5 a-side football. Amend condition 3 to allow use from
10.00 am to 11.00 pm 7 days a week.
Officer: Steve Walker, tel: 292337 Received
Date:
10 March 2004
Con Area: N/A Expiry Date: 05 May 2004
Agent: Mrs H R Field, c/o Westows Ltd, School Road, Hove
Applicant
:
Mr J P Field, c/o Westows Ltd
1 RECOMMENDATION
Refuse Planning Permission for the following reason:-
1. The operation of the premises for additional activities during
extended opening hours over a trial period has resulted in
significant levels of noise and disturbance emanating from, and
surrounding the premises, causing proven harm to the amenities of
occupiers of neighbouring residential properties. This is contrary to
policies BE1 of the Hove Borough Local Plan and SU10 and QD27 of
the Brighton & Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft which seek to
protect amenity.
2 THE SITE
This application relates to premises on the eastern side of School Road,
the rear of which adjoins properties on Alpine Road.
3 RELEVANT HISTORY
In December 2001, Planning Permission was granted for the change of
use of units A & B from engineering training centre (Use Class D1) to
business use (Use Class B1), recladding of units A –F with coated profile
metal cladding and provision of forecourt parking
(ref.:BH2001/02213/FP).
In February 2002, Planning Permission was granted for the change of
part of unit A from its former use as an engineering training centre for
Brighton College of Technology, to a martial arts centre.(ref.
BH2001/02900/FP).
In September 2002 Planning Permission was granted for the change of
use of the premises to safe play children’s activity centre (ref.:
BH2002/01593/FP). Following the premises coming into operation,
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
complaints were received in respect of additional activities on the site
in the form of five a side football matches. An application was duly
invited to regularise the activities, and Planning Permission granted.
However, in view of the content of objections from residents raising
concerns over noise and disturbance, the permission was granted for a
temporary period, expiring in March 2004. This was to allow time for its
impact to be monitored. It was further subject to conditions restricting
the use for a 5-a side sports facility for use only in connection with the
remainder of Unit A as a safe play children’s activity centre, a
restriction on the hours of 1000 to 2300 on Mondays to Saturdays and
1000 to 1430 on Sundays and Bank Holidays and the making available
of an area of car parking outside unit E.
4 THE APPLICATION
This application is for the removal of condition 1 to make permanent
the use of the premises for sports and leisure, and further to amend the
opening hours to allow use from 1000 to 2300, 7 days a week.
5 CONSULTATIONS
External:
Neighbours: The occupiers of neighbouring properties have been
notified of the proposal. Letters of objection have been received. Flat
3, Derwent Court, (1) 2, 3, 4, 5 Hadley Court, (3), 8, 10 Dallington Road,
24, 28, 30, 32, 36 Alpine Road, SGB, 4 Kingsthorpe Road, 57 Goldstone
Crescent (owner of several flats in the locality). Objections are on the
following grounds:-
1. Noise and disturbance -There is a worsening problem of noise, when
people are arriving and leaving the premises. Groups of people
congregate after the match and there is noise from car horns, car
alarms and screeching tyres. Matches are going on four to five
evenings a week without a break and now go on to 1.00pm on
Monday nights, and sometimes finish even later. Another neighbour
states the venue is regularly used beyond 1200 and people have
been seen outside at 0100. When one complaint was made
regarding matches continuing after 2300, it was explained that the
management couldn’t help matches overrunning because of injury
time being added. Children in neighbouring properties should not
have to be kept wake by such activities. Shouting and balls
bouncing from door windows can be heard form the premises. The
previous occupier of these units did not work beyond 2130 or at
weekends as agreed by the Council. The tannoy system at
children’s party announcing that that their playtime is finished and
that they should return to their allotted room or return equipment
cause nuisance. The noise has rendered one rear garden almost
unusable. One letter notes that no objections were raised to the
original proposals, as it was seen as putting empty premises back
into use, without realising what the effect would actually be.
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
Another letter notes that a resident had lived in the area for 13 years
before Westows changed the area beyond recognition.
2. Highway safety - customers speed up and down School Road in
their cars making it highly dangerous for pedestrians. Parking is very
difficult and residents from Dallington Road have to park in Grange
Road. Cars are parked on double yellow lines, over dropped
pavement crossings and on corners. One local business notes
existing problems of parking have been exacerbated by Westows,
which it notes has no parking facilities. Access to private residential
property is restricted and particularly difficult for disabled persons.
Proposed parking at units D and E has not occurred as the secure
allocated area is always locked, therefore making noise
disturbance in the very near vicinity of residential properties.
3. Litter - There has been an increase in litter in the area, with drink
cans and food wrappers.
4. Potential future expansion - Concerns that the premises will raise
activities, include application for an alcohol licence. More recently
the premises appear to be operating a ‘youth club evening’ with
groups transferred by minibus and on foot. There is concern that if
the application is granted, the operators will use the premises as
they see fit and disregard planning regulations still further.
5. Light pollution - The effects of light pollution from lights being left on
well into the night.
Three letters suggest that these problems may be alleviated with traffic
calming, a one way system, dedicated parking, litter bins, better trees
and street lighting and increased rubbish collection, removal of the
tannoy system, soundproofing restriction of opening of windows and
doors, netting to prevent balls bouncing off the walls and glass, and a
reduction in opening times to avoid late night activity.
Sussex Police: No objections.
Internal:
Traffic Manager: A number of complaints have been received about
problems of inconsiderate parking such as parking on the corners. by
traffic generated by this development which it has not been possible
to resolve. Although these problems have not been witnessed by
Engineers, meetings have been held with residents to discuss the
problem. The problems are related more to noise and disturbance
rather than highway safety and would be insufficient to refuse the
application on traffic grounds alone.
Environmental Health: A Noise Abatement Notice has been served in
respect of noise from indoor football activities. If the applicants
continue the use, a comprehensive sound insulation scheme would
have to be carried out. Light from a large rear window was also judged
to be intrusive on neighbouring residents but cannot be dealt with
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
under current Environmental Health legislation. If granted. conditions
should be imposed in respect of soundproofing of building,
soundproofing of plant and machinery, and the provision of black out
screens to the rear windows.
6 PLANNING POLICIES
Hove Borough Local Plan:
BE1– General guidelines
TR16 – Cycle and Motorcycle Parking
Brighton and Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft:
SU10 – Noise nuisance
QD27 – Protection of amenity
TR – Safe development (new policy)
TR12 – Cycle access and parking
7 CONSIDERATIONS
The main considerations are the appropriateness of the use having
regard to noise and disturbance (from not only the use itself but also
the noise associated with the arrival and departure of visitors), and
highway safety.
In respect of the original application, the Environmental Health Officer
had noted that he had been contacted by several local residents over
the previous six months, although it is clear their concerns were in
respect of litter, traffic and general street disturbance. Noise
emanating from the premises did not appear to be a problem. A
potential for noise breakout from the glazed area of the rear east wall
was identified. However, it was not recommended that a condition be
imposed at this stage, as no problems have been identified. If such a
problem did occur, it could easily be resolved by boarding over the
glazed area. Conditions were duly recommended in respect of hours
of operation and the soundproofing of any plant and machinery.
One point raised by the applicant at that time, which has some validity
is the fact that residents, previously accustomed to the comings and
goings of students from the former use of the premises as Brighton
College of Technology’s Engineering Training Centre, will have
subsequently enjoyed a period of relative inactivity whilst the premises
were vacant. This may have deepened the impact of the reuse of the
premises. Nevertheless, the applicant did acknowledged of-site
problems of noise and disturbance, and made attempts to make
customers aware of the need to have regard to neighbours. Similarly,
the applicant noted that he collected litter from customers on a daily
basis.
It was therefore concluded that in this aspect, it should be possible for
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
the premises themselves to operate without undue noise and
disturbance, but that this would need to be an ongoing function at the
centre.
Following notification of this application, the Environmental Health
Officer has received several complaints from local residents. Following
an investigation into their complaints concerning noise from indoor
football and children’s activities, he is satisfied that a statutory noise
nuisance as defined in the Environmental Protection Act 1990 exists. In
particular, the complaints refer to noise disturbance from balls hitting
the rear wall of the unit. As a result, a Noise Abatement Notice has
been served within a timescale of 120 days to coincide with likely
planning committee meeting. In respect of the notice, if the occupiers
decide to carry on operating at this venue, a comprehensive sound
insulation scheme will need to be implemented. The Environmental
Health Officer further noted the artificial light coming from the large
rear windows was intrusive, thereby concurring with the views of a
neighbour. However, light pollution cannot be controlled under the
Environmental Protection Act 1990. If Planning Permission is to be
granted the building and any plant and machinery should be
soundproofed, and black out screens installed to the rear east facing
wall to protect the residents of Alpine Road from intrusive artificial light.
This may effectively control noise break out late at night. However, it
should be noted that the late night activity to 11.00pm and beyond is
currently unauthorised.
Whilst some of the issues raised may be addressed through the
imposition of suitable conditions, it is not possible to impose conditions
to control the activity outside the building and many of the residents
concerns have related to this issue in particular. Furthermore, not only
are the premises currently operating outside the permitted hours, there
is an admission to local residents that injury time may, on occasion,
result in an increase hours still further. The monitoring period is intended
to allow an impression to gained as to how well the premises has been
operating given stringent conditions. Given that the operators have
not been compliant with the conditions, the likelihood of compliance
with any further sets of conditions must be questioned.
Parking and highway safety issues
The Principal Traffic Engineer has commented that prior to the original
application being submitted several complaints had been received
from local residents regarding parking problems caused by the
development. However since the applicant was made aware of these
problems he had done his best to work with both the residents and
council to try to ameliorate these problems and prior to determination,
no further complaints have been received.
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
A site visit was duly carried out on the evening of Wednesday 18th June
2003, Wednesday being the busiest night for the 5 a-side football
league that operates at the premises, and this was undertaken without
the prior knowledge of the applicant.
During the visit, a change over time occurred, this being when one
session finishes and the next begins, and it is when the greatest traffic
problems are experienced. Although little on street parking was
available at the time, no vehicles had to resort to either double parking
or illegal parking in order to park in the vicinity of the premises, and
although the area was slightly congested, he did not believe the
problem was great enough to warrant refusal of the application.
At the applicants request, a subsequent meeting was arranged during
which the applicant indicated the measures he was taking to minimise
traffic impact in the surrounding streets including the encouragement
of car sharing and offers of discounts to bus users. The Traffic Engineer
considered that the applicant was doing his best to minimise any such
problems.
The Traffic Engineer further considered that the applicant had also
done his best to secure additional off road parking further down School
Road and although this is not ideally situated, it was considered that
these additional parking spaces did allow the applicant some flexibility
in controlling on street parking demand in the area.
Therefore, although there were some doubts over the traffic
generation from this development, it was considered that by giving a
temporary permission for the use, it would allow the council to monitor
the parking situation in the interim.
It is clear that parking problems have continued in the locality since
the granting of the Temporary Planning Permission. However, the
Transport Engineer considers that these have created noise and
nuisance rather than highway safety concerns, and therefore
considers that there is insufficient grounds for refusing the application
on highway safety grounds. However, the cumulative effects of the
problems caused by traffic and general noise and disturbance from
the premises are such that it is clear that the premises are unable to
integrate into the residential area without overall significant impacts on
local amenities. Again on this point is should be noted that the parking
area adjacent to unit E which was intended to be used for excess
parking has not been made operational, being kept locked, once
again calling into question the applicant’s willingness to comply with
conditions. Whilst conditions may be imposed in respect of activities
within the building itself, conditions cannot be applied in relation to
vehicular traffic movements or behaviour of customers outside the
premises, so as to fully ensure there is no harm to residential amenity.
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
Conclusion:
A temporary planning permission was previously granted in order to
assess the effects of noise and disturbance and parking on the
amenities of the locality. It is clear that the premises have neither been
able to internalise the issues of noise and disturbance, and there is
evidence of noise breakout from the centre, culminating in the serving
of a Noise Abatement Notice by the Environmental Health Officer. It is
also clear that the premises have, as with the previous application
which sought to regularise activities which were already occurring,
once again sought to widen the level of activities prior to making an
application, in breach of conditions pertaining at the time. The current
use is considered to be significantly different from the originally
envisaged 0800 – 1800 activities associated with a children’s safe play
centre. This is a use which has clearly been a commercial success.
Many of the negative impacts associated with it could be dealt with
by condition. However, some of the unintended consequences of the
use, many of which are outside the applicant’s control, but others
which may have been suitably addressed, have resulted in a
significant impact on the amenity of nearby residents. These effects
can only be fully addressed by refusing planning permission. It is
therefore recommended that permission be refused.
8 EQUALITIES IMPLICATIONS
None identified.
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
No: BH2004/00819/FP Ward: EAST BRIGHTON
Address: Clyde Arms, 25 Bristol Gardens
Proposal: Demolition of existing public house. Erection of part 4 storey,
part 5 storey block of 14 flats with associated amenity space,
bicycle and bin storage and 2 disabled car parking spaces.
Officer: Maria Seale, tel: 292322 Received
Date:
15th March
2004
Con Area: ADJOINING KEMP TOWN Expiry Date: 16th June
2004
Agent: R H Partnership Architects, 15 Bond Street, Brighton
Applicant: Peregrine Partnership Ltd, 157 Sackville Road, Hove
1 RECOMMENDATION
Refuse planning permission for the following reasons:
1. The proposed development would, by reason of excessive height,
scale and massing, relate unsympathetically to the character and
appearance of existing development in the locality, and would
adversely affect the setting of the adjacent Kemp Town
Conservation Area and grade I listed buildings in Sussex Square. The
proposal would therefore be contrary to policies ENV1, ENV3, ENV22
and ENV33 of the Brighton Borough Local Plan and QD1, QD2, QD3,
QD4, HE3 and HE6 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan Second
Deposit Draft.
2. Limited on-site car parking provision is proposed and the
development of 14 flats in this location would result in significant on-
street parking in the vicinity of the site, increasing difficulty in parking
in an already heavily congested area and interference with the free
flow and safety of traffic. The proposal would therefore be contrary
to policies TR9 and TR44 of the Brighton Borough Local Plan and TR1,
TR2, TR, TR17 and HO6 in the Brighton and Hove Local Plan Second
Deposit Draft.
3. The proposal would, by reason of excessive height and close
proximity to existing residential properties, be unduly overbearing
and result in a sense of enclosure and loss of outlook and privacy to
the occupiers of those properties. The proposal is therefore contrary
to policies ENV1 of the Brighton Borough Local Plan and QD27 of the
Brighton and Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft.
4. The proposed development does not make any provision for
affordable housing, contrary to policy HO2 of the Brighton and Hove
Local Plan Second Deposit Draft which seeks to secure a minimum
of 40% affordable units of schemes of 10 units or over.
Informative:
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
1. This decision is based on drawing numbers 000, 001, 002, 100, 220,
221, 222, 223, 230, 231, 232 submitted on 15th March 2004.
2. There is an apparent lack of natural lighting and ventilation to the
proposed basement bedroom, and the applicant is advised that
the total area of the window must be at least 1/10th of the floor area
of each room, and the openable section of the window must be at
least 1/20th of the floor area of the room to comply with the
requirements of the Housing Act. For information regarding the
Housing Act contact the council’s Private Sector Housing team on
293155.
2 THE SITE
The locality is predominantly residential in character and is made up of
properties of varying architectural styles. There are a number of
commercial premises in the area such as a laundrette, dental clinic,
health spa, garage and builders yard. The majority of surrounding
development is two and three storeys high and mainly terraced. The site
is an L-shaped plot comprising a public house, located on the corner of
Bristol Gardens and Princes Terrace. The building is a two-storey brick
built building and is currently vacant. There is a beer garden partially to
the rear bordering the rear gardens of residential properties in Princes
Terrace. The building is set back from the Princes Terrace frontage by a
tarmaced forecourt. There are some residential properties opposite the
site on Bristol Gardens, and gardens and garages of properties in Sussex
Square. To the west of the site is a vehicular access serving a builders
centre located to the rear of the site. There is a single storey building
adjoining the rear boundary of the site forming part of the builders
centre. There is a dental clinic on the corner beyond the vehicular
access and the rear of residential properties in Prince Regents Close
back on to the access further to the north. The ground level in Bristol
Gardens slopes up from east to west and the beer garden is set approx.
1 metre lower than the main building. The properties in Princes Terrace
are three-storeys (including basement) and are set lower than the beer
garden. The end property, No.1 Princes Terrace, has high level windows
serving the basement flat in the end flank wall. The opposite side of
Bristol Gardens lies within the Kemp Town Conservation Area, and
beyond that are the rear of properties in the Grade I listed Sussex
Square.
3 RELEVANT HISTORY
BH2003/00162/FP - Demolition of existing public house. Erection of 21
new build residential units comprising 15 private flats and 6 affordable
flats. Withdrawn 18/03/03.
4 THE APPLICATION
The proposal involves the demolition of the existing building and
erection of a part 4 storey, part 5 storey (including basement) building
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
comprising 14 no. flats. Four 1-bedroom units are proposed, eight 2-
bedroom units, and two 3-bedroom units. A store for 22 bicycles is
proposed, and a bin store. All but one of the flats would have access to
either a private balcony, terrace and garden, and a communal garden
is proposed to the rear. The building would be of contemporary design
with a flat roof. The density of the development is 190 dwellings per
hectare.
The applicant has submitted an independent report on sunlight and
daylight, which concludes that the proposal will reduce the incidence
of daylight and sunlight reaching the facades of adjoining buildings but
only to a limited extent. A Design Statement has been submitted, which
states the design concept for the proposal and lists sustainable building
practices proposed. It states that the applicant is willing to financially
contribute towards sustainable transport and open space.
5 CONSULTATIONS
External:
Neighbours: Letters have been received from the following: 5, Upper
Maisonette 35, Rugby Place; 7, 8, 9, 21, 24, 40, 44, 49, 50, 51 Prince
Regents Close; 4, 7, 8, 9a, 24, Fleurs Cottage 29, 34, 36a Bristol Gardens;
26 Sussex Square, Flat 2 29, Flat 1 31 Sussex Square; 8, 12, 18, 21, 25, 41,
48, 59 Bennet Road; 1, Top Flat 1, 2, 2a, 3, 3b, 4, 4a, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 17,
19, 23, 25, 29, 32, 34, 39, 40, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 48a, 49, 51 51a, Princes
Terrace; 6, 23, 27b Bristol Street objecting to the proposal on the
following grounds:
- Insufficient on-site parking – resulting in exacerbation of existing on-
street car parking problem in this busy mixed use area, a car-free
development cannot be enforced
- Averse impact to highway safety/difficult access for emergency
vehicles
- Height and scale excessive and design (including materials) out of
character with locality with adjacent development
- Over-development/excessive density
- Overshadowing/loss of light
- Loss of privacy
- Increased noise and disturbance
- No affordable housing
- Loss of open forecourt to east
- Loss of attractive building
- Threat to security
- Welcome loss of pub in principle
Councillors Gill Mitchell, Craig Turton & Warren Morgan support
residents’ objections and comment:
- No objection in principle to development of site
- Concern as no provision of affordable units
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
- Concern proposal would result in loss of light and privacy to residents
- Concern that proposal represents excessive density on the site
- Concern proposal would result in an exacerbation of existing parking
problem
- Design not in keeping with surrounding development
Sussex Police: The location is a high risk crime area. The key to
controlling what occurs within this project is to control access. This can
be achieved by way of audio/visual access control to all three final exit
doors. Any trades button should be coded and not timed. All glazing to
the basement/ground floor should be laminated. The side access and
bin store should be secured adequately.
Environment Agency: No objection subject to imposition of conditions to
prevent pollution of the water environment.
Southern Water: No objection. The point and details of proposed
connection to the public sewer will require formal approval. No surface
water should be discharged to the foul sewer. A water supply can be
provided for the proposed development as and when required.
English Heritage: On the basis of the information submitted English
heritage is content that the Local Planning Authority determine this
application in line with relevant local plan policies and the advice of
your specialist Conservation & Design team.
Internal:
Planning Policy: The proposal does not comply with policy HO2 which
requires the provision of an element of affordable housing. The proposal
does not provide for any off-street parking apart from two spaces for
disabled occupiers, contrary to TR1, 2, and 17. In this locality, the
proposal is likely to exacerbate on-street parking problems and the
applicants have not demonstrated how ‘car-free’ housing (HO6) would
work, despite there being good public transport accessibility. The
Lifetime Homes (HO13) issue needs to be clarified as do the amenity
considerations related to the overall design and density aspects of the
development proposal. Loss of A3 use to residential – the general
principle of the loss of an A3 use to residential in this location does not
raise any planning policy objections.
Conservation & Design: This site lies immediately outside the boundary of
the Kemp Town conservation area and, on this prominent corner site, will
clearly affect the setting of the conservation area and, to some degree,
also, the setting of the listed buildings of Sussex Square. It is
acknowledged that Bristol Gardens is very mixed in terms of building
form and that the existing building makes no great contribution to the
setting of the conservation area. The extension of the traditional building
line along Bristol Gardens is very welcome though in urban design terms
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
it would be preferable for the building line to be reinstated around the
corner into Princes Terrace too. The proposed elevational treatment and
the materials are also considered to be generally acceptable (subject
to approval of samples).
However, Bristol Gardens consists predominantly of modest two storey
buildings which defer to the rear of the grand Sussex Square buildings,
both historically and architecturally. Immediately opposite the site are
small scale historic service buildings relating to Sussex Square. This
proposal is in effect a four storey building on a much larger footprint
than neighbouring buildings and, on this prominent corner site, would
very much draw the eye and dominate short and medium views, to the
detriment of the setting of the conservation area and listed buildings.
This could be overcome by deleting the penthouse storey, but retaining
the stair tower feature to break up the parapet line. There is no
objection in principle to the redevelopment of this site with a clearly
modern block of flats but, as proposed, the height of the building in
conjunction with its footprint and massing would harm the setting of the
adjoining Kemp Town conservation area.
Traffic Manager: With the exception of off-street parking the applicant
has provided everything we would normally require. However, it is the
lack of parking which is a problem. The area around this development is
already heavily congested with on-street parking and to add the
parking requirements of a 14 flat development will not be acceptable.
The location of the development is outside the city centre and we
would normally require 1 car parking space per flat. However, in this
case reasonable public transport connection are quite nearby and the
requirement could be reduced to 75% of the standard i.e. 10 off-street
spaces. The area surrounding the development is not in a controlled
parking zone and will not be considered for inclusion in a zone for over a
year. Car-free development is not, therefore, an option. Unless the off-
street parking can be provided this application should be refused.
Environmental Health: No objection subject to conditions regarding
refuse storage and soundproofing of plant/machinery.
Private Sector Housing: There is concern regarding the apparent lack of
natural lighting and ventilation to the proposed basement bedroom.
The total area of the window must be at least 1/10th of the floor area of
each room. The openable section of the window must be at least 1/20th
of the floor area of the room.
6 PLANNING POLICIES
Brighton Borough Local Plan:
ENV1 - General principles
ENV3 - Design and scale of new development
ENV22 - Conservation areas
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
ENV33 - Setting of a listed building
H2 - Maximising the use of urban land
H19 - Private amenity space provision
TR9 - Highway considerations
TR34 - Cycle parking provision
TR44 - Car parking standards
D3 - Disabled parking spaces
Brighton and Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft:
TR1 - Development and the demand for travel
TR2 - Public transport accessibility and parking
TR - Safe development
TR12 - Cycle access and parking
TR16 - Parking for people with a mobility related disability
TR17 Parking standards
SU2 - Efficiency of development in the use of energy water and
materials
QD1 - Design – quality of development and design statements
QD2 - Key principles for neighbourhoods
QD3 - Full and effective use of sites
QD4 - Design – strategic impact
QD7 - Crime prevention through environmental design
QD15 - Landscape design
QD27 - Protection of amenity
QD28 - Planning Obligations
HO2 - Affordable housing
HO3 - Dwelling type and size
HO4 - Dwelling densities
HO - Provision of private amenity space in residential development
HO6 - Car free housing
HO13 - Accessible housing and lifetime homes
HO20 - Retention of community facilities
HE3 - Development affecting the setting of a listed building
HE6 - Development within or affecting the setting of conservation areas
7 CONSIDERATIONS
The main issues in the consideration of this application are the impact
the proposal would have on:
- the character and appearance of the locality
- the on-street parking/highway safety situation
- the occupiers of existing nearby residential properties
Policy HO20 relates to the retention of community uses and in some
cases a public house could be argued to be a ‘community use’ for the
purposes of this policy, particularly if there are facilities such as a
function room that could be rented or the locality is badly served by
such uses. In this case, the loss of the public house is considered
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
acceptable in principle, as neither these exceptions apply. In addition,
given the history of crime and disorder of the site, its redevelopment is
encouraged in principle. The building is not listed or considered to be of
any particular architectural merit to warrant its retention.
Government advice and local plan policies generally encourage higher
residential densities than might be typically be found in existing localities
(HO4 and QD3), provided that it does not lead to the deterioration in
the environment or the quality of life, and regard is given to the impact
on the surrounding area and the need for adequate spaces between
buildings. There are some concerns that the overall scale and density
(190 dwellings per ha), are excessive in relation to the predominantly
two storey, modest residential area it immediately abuts. It is not
considered that the proposal would relate sympathetically to the
character or appearance of the area and there is concern that the
proposal would cause serious harm to the living conditions and
amenities of adjoining residents, in particular through loss of outlook and
privacy.
Concerns regarding the scale and height of the previously withdrawn
scheme (BH2003/0162/FP) have not been sufficiently overcome. The
overall footprint, height and massing of the 4-5 storey block are
considered excessive and out of character with the existing modest two
and three storey development. The site is located on rising ground and
would be unduly dominant, particularly in relation to the existing modest
scale houses in Princes Terrace. The proposal would dominate short and
medium views, to the detriment of the setting of the adjoining Kemp
Town Conservation Area and rear of listed buildings in Sussex Square. In
urban design terms it would be preferable if the building line was
reinstated around the corner to Princes Terrace. There is no objection to
the proposed elevational treatment or materials in principle, however,
there is concern that the west elevation would appear quite harsh in the
street scene as it consists of mainly a blank wall with limited openings.
Whilst there is no objection in principle to redevelopment of the site, or
to a contemporary design approach in this location of mixed
architectural styles, the proposal as submitted is unacceptable.
The applicant’s independent daylight sunlight report states that the
proposal will reduce the incidence of daylight and sunlight reaching the
facades of adjoining buildings, but only to a limited extent.
Notwithstanding this there are concerns that the proposal would be
unduly overbearing and result in a loss of outlook, and overshadow
gardens, in particular to the first property in Princes Terrace. There is likely
to be an undue loss privacy from bedroom windows facing eastwards
(albeit at an angle) to the rear of Princes Terrace. The impact of the
development is emphasised due to the difference in ground levels
between the adjacent properties and the site. Whilst the proposal does
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
not wrap around the site and take up most of the rear beer garden as in
the withdrawn scheme, the overall scale of what is proposed and its
proximity and relationship with adjoining properties remains
unacceptable. Windows of the existing building currently overlook
properties opposite the site in Bristol Gardens and this relationship
between windows is characteristic of properties in the road and is
considered acceptable. On balance, the proposed balconies to the
front and side elevations are not considered to result in an undue loss of
privacy to occupiers of properties located on the opposite sides of the
road. The road width is not uncommonly narrow and the
balconies/terraces are relatively small and/or located at a higher level
so as not to cause direct overlooking, and where appropriate these can
be screened to reduce their impact.
It is considered that a development of 14 dwellings will give rise to
significant demand for travel which it is considered has not been
adequately addressed as part of the scheme. Whilst the proposed
disabled car parking spaces are welcomed, there is very limited on-site
car parking proposed (2 spaces), and the applicant has not
demonstrated how the development would remain genuinely car free
or that traffic problems would not arise. There are no on-street parking
controls in the locality therefore withholding residents parking permits is
not an option (policy HO6). The location of the development is outside
the city centre and parking standards normally require 1 car parking
space per flat, however, in this case reasonable public transport
connections are quite nearby and the requirement could be reduced
to 75% of the standard i.e. 10 off-street spaces. In the absence of this
provision, however, the Traffic Manager considers that the application
should be refused given the existing congestion in the locality. The
applicant is willing to provide a financial contribution towards improving
alternative sustainable modes of transport, however, this is not
considered sufficient in its own right for this type of development in this
location. Secure provision for cycle parking and storage is welcomed.
The proposal is for 14 residential units and as such policy HO2 requires an
element of affordable housing. Policy HO2 requires at least 40% of units
to be affordable for schemes of 10 units or more, which equates to 5/6
units. The proposal is contrary in this respect as no affordable housing
units are offered. The applicants state that the Inspector’s Report on the
Local Plan recommends the threshold for affordable housing be 15 units.
However, the Inspector’s report is not binding and until the Council has
made its formal views known on such recommendations, the relevant
policy for development control purposes remains HO2 as in the Second
Deposit Draft.
In accordance with policy HO13, the two units to be designed to
wheelchair accessible standards are supported. In accordance with
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
policy HO3, the proposal is for a mix of residential units - 4no. 1 bedroom
flats, 8no. 2 bed flats and 2no. 3bed flats, and such a mix is welcomed.
All units, apart from one ground floor flat (Unit 4), have a balcony, small
patio/garden area or roof terrace area and the proposal provides for a
shared, communal amenity space at the rear western side of the
development. This is considered an improvement on the last scheme
submitted, and is considered to comply with policies H19 and HO in the
context of this relatively central location. In terms of policy HO5, the
proposal will create a demand for outdoor recreation space, and in
accordance with the policy and draft SPG, the applicants have stated
they would be willing to make a financial contribution towards the
provision/improvement of alternative outdoor recreation space.
Adequate storage is proposed within the scheme for refuse. The Design
Statement indicates that some consideration has been given to the
sustainability criteria set out in policy SU2, and this is welcomed. This
includes measures such as use of locally sourced labour and materials
where possible, high insulation, use of low energy lighting and provision
of refuse/recycling storage. The scheme scores a rating of 19/36 and
‘Partially meets’ expectations. Residents’ concerns regarding threat to
security is noted, however, Sussex Police raise no objection in principle
provided that various security measures are incorporated into the
scheme.
Conclusion:
Whilst there is no objection in principle to redevelopment of the site, for
the reasons outlined above the proposal is considered to conflict with
local plan policies, and refusal is recommended.
8 EQUALITIES IMPLICATIONS
The new residential units would have to comply with Part M of Building
Regulations with regard to disabled access. Two units would be built to
a wheelchair standard. Two dedicated disabled parking spaces are
proposed to serve the development.
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
No: BH2004/00498/LB Ward: EAST BRIGHTON
Address: 78 Marine Parade
Proposal: Conversion of existing 2 flats and maisonette, to 4 flats and
maisonette with additional storey to existing rear extension.
Officer: Pete Johnson, tel: 292138 Received
Date:
04 February 2004
Con Area: EAST CLIFF Expiry Date: 12 April 2004
Agent: Top Draw, 12 North Street, Lewes
Applicant
:
Robert Beatty, Old Farm House, The Green, Rottingdean
1 RECOMMENDATION
Grant listed building consent subject to the following conditions:
1. 01.05 Listed building consent.
2. 22.01 Approval limited to drawings. Add ‘and to comply with policy
ENV.31 of the Brighton Borough Plan and policy HE.1 of the Brighton
& Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft.’
3. 22.06 Features to match original. Add ‘and to comply with policy
ENV.31 of the Brighton Borough Plan and policy HE.1 of the Brighton
& Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft.’
4. 22.10 New doors (panelled). Add ‘and to comply with policy
ENV.31 of the Brighton Borough Plan and policy HE.1 of the Brighton
& Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft.’
5. 24.01 Windows (to be sash). Add ‘and to comply with policy
ENV.31 of the Brighton Borough Plan and policy HE.1 of the Brighton
& Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft.’
6. Before any works commence a detailed drawing of the design of
the new staircase, at 1:5 scale shall be submitted to and approved
in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Only the design
approved by the Local Planning Authority shall thereafter be
installed.
Reason: These details are not included and require further
consideration in the interests of the character of this listed building
and to comply with policy ENV.31 of the Brighton Borough Plan and
policy HE.1 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan Second Deposit
Draft.
7. The new rooflights on the rear elevation shall be conservation
rooflights only, as specified by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interests of the character of this listed building and
to comply with policy ENV.31 of the Brighton Borough Plan and
policy HE.1 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan Second Deposit
Draft.
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
Informatives:
1. This decision is based on drawing no. 0317.02b submitted on
15/4/04.
2. This decision to grant Listed Building Consent has been taken
having regard to the policies and proposals in the Brighton
Borough Local Plan & Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft set
out below, and to all relevant material considerations:
Brighton Borough Local Plan:
ENV.31Listed Buildings
Brighton and Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft:
HE.1Listed Buildings
2 THE SITE
This is a six storey Grade 2 listed building (including basement and attic
space) on the junction with Bedford Street in the East Cliff conservation
area. There is presently a three storey (including basement) rear
projection to the building at the rear, adjacent to the pavement in
Bedford Street.
3 RELEVANT HISTORY
BH2004/00158/FP - Conversion of existing 2 flats and maisonette, to 4
flats and maisonette with a 2 storey extension over existing rear
projection - Refused due to adverse impact of proposed works on
listed building and conservation area.
BH2004/00992/FP - Conversion of existing 2 flats and maisonette, to 4
flats and maisonette with a single storey rear extension – Granted.
4 THE APPLICATION
The proposal is for internal works to the main building and an additional
storey on the rear projection to form 4 flats and a maisonette. The
additional storey would be rendered under a slate pitched and hipped
roof behind a parapet.
5 CONSULTATIONS
External:
Neighbours: Objection received from Flat 2, 77 Marine Parade
expressing the view that the extension at the rear would seriously alter
the character of this Grade 2 listed building. (Application has since
been amended by reducing this extension by one storey and
changing the roof form to a parapet, reflecting others nearby)
Internal:
Conservation & Design: The amended drawings reflect what has been
agreed with the applicant. The internal alterations do not involve the
loss of any original features or fabric and will restore the plan form
closer to the original.
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
The additional storey on the rear addition now sits comfortably with the
scale of the original building and the roof form reflects others in
Bedford Street. The windows on the north elevation have now been
amended to match. Recommend approval subject to conditions.
Private Sector Housing: Fire escape details should be dealt with under
the Building Regulations. No other comments
6 PLANNING POLICIES
Brighton Borough Local Plan:
ENV.31 - Listed Buildings
Brighton and Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft:
HE1 - Listed Buildings
7 CONSIDERATIONS
This application is for listed building consent, so the sole concern is the
effect of the proposals on the character of this grade 2 listed building.
There is also a corresponding planning approval, which addresses
other matters.
The application has been amended twice to overcome the initial
concerns of the Conservation Officer. The rear extension has been
reduced by a storey and its design changed to reflect the style and
proportions of the original building. The internal layout has been
amended to accord with the Conservation Officer’s advice, and is
now considered acceptable and in accord with policy HE1.
Conclusion:
Approval is recommended, with the conditions set out above as
requested by the Conservation Officer.
8 EQUALITIES IMPLICATIONS
None.
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
No: BH2004/00222/LB Ward: QUEEN'S PARK
Address: 26 Old Steine
Proposal: Alterations to third floor (to convert from office floor space to
residential).
Officer: Pete Johnson, tel: 292138 Received
Date:
19 January 2004
Con Area: VALLEY GARDENS Expiry Date: 15 March 2004
Agent: M J Lewis, 28a Stanford Road, Brighton
Applicant
:
Dak Partnership Ltd, 26 Old Steine
1 RECOMMENDATION
Grant listed building consent subject to the following conditions:
1. 01.05 Listed building consent
2. 22.01 Approval limited to drawings. Add ’and to comply with policy
ENV.33 of the Brighton Borough Plan and policy HE.1of the Brighton
& Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft.’
3. 22.06 Features to match original. Add ’and to comply with policy
ENV.33 of the Brighton Borough Plan and policy HE.1of the Brighton
& Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft.’
4. 22.10 New doors (panelled) . Add ’and to comply with policy
ENV.33 of the Brighton Borough Plan and policy HE.1of the Brighton
& Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft.’
5. Before any works commence, 1:1 scale drawings of the new
dormer windows shall be submitted to and approved by the Local
Planning Authority. Only such details as may be approved by the
Local Planning Authority shall thereafter be installed.
Reason: These details are not included and require further
consideration to ensure a satisfactory appearance to this listed
building and to comply with policy ENV.33 of the Brighton Borough
Plan and policy HE.1of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan Second
Deposit Draft.
6. No flues, vents, waste or soil pipes shall be installed on the front
elevation of the building.
Reason: In the interests of the appearance of this listed building
and to comply with policy ENV.33 of the Brighton Borough Plan and
policy HE.1of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft.
Informatives:
1. This decision is based on the 3 drawings all numbered 305/10 and
submitted on 19/1/04.
2. This permission does not grant Listed Building Consent for details of
any internal works to the roof structure.
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
3. This decision to grant Listed Building Consent has been taken
having regard to the policies and proposals in the Brighton
Borough Local Plan and Brighton & Hove Local Plan Second
Deposit Draft set out below, and to all relevant material
considerations.
Brighton Borough Local Plan:
ENV.1 Ensuring new development does not detract from the
environment
ENV.22 Conservation areas.
ENV.33 Listed buildings
Brighton and Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft:
QD.27 Protection of amenity
HE.1 Listed buildings
HE.6 Conservation areas
SPG4
2 THE SITE
This application relates to the top (3rd) floor of this Grade 2 listed
building, which is within the Valley Gardens Conservation Area
3 RELEVANT HISTORY
BH2003/00523/FP & BH2003/00525/LB - Change of use from language
school to offices on the ground, first and second floors with residential
flat in basement and maisonette on 3rd and 4th floors. Erection of a 4-
storey wing and mansard roof. Refused.
BH2003/01765/FP Change of use of ground, first and second floors from
language school to offices. Granted.
BH2003/02180/FP & BH2003/02181/LB Change of use of basement to
residential and internal alterations. Granted
BH2004/00795/LB Demolition and rebuilding of roof, rear dormer and 3rd
floor structures. Refused.
BH2004/00796/FP Demolition and rebuilding of roof, rear dormer and
3rd floor structures. Granted.
4 THE APPLICATION
The proposal is to convert the 3rd floor to a flat and includes external
and internal alterations to this Grade 2 listed building. There is also an
application for planning permission.
5 CONSULTATIONS
External:
Neighbours: Objection received from Flat 5, 27 Old Steine, expressing
concerns that a residential use is inappropriate and would require
internal changes out of character with the building, and that external
changes to the roof and rear elevations will be out of character with
the building.
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
Internal:
Conservation & Design: No objection. To the listed building consent
application please add standard conditions 22.01, 22.06 & 22.10 plus a
condition requiring 1:1 scale joinery details of the proposed dormer
and a condition to ensure no flues, vents or waste/ soil pipes are
installed on the front elevation.
6 PLANNING POLICIES
Brighton Borough Local Plan:
ENV.1 - Ensuring new development does not detract from the
environment
ENV.22 - Conservation areas.
ENV.33 - Listed buildings
Brighton and Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft:
QD.27 - Protection of amenity
HE.1 - Listed buildings
HE.6 - Conservation areas
7 CONSIDERATIONS
The proposal is for alterations to a listed building and it is therefore
important to ensure the proposal does not have any adverse affect on
the character of the building or the surrounding conservation area.
As the history (Para. 3) shows, permission was granted last year to
change the use of ground, 1st & 2nd floors from a language school to
offices. A subsequent application was then granted to change the
basement to a flat. This proposal is to change the top floor to a flat.
Whilst a neighbour expresses the view that residential use would be
inappropriate, it is pointed out that these buildings were originally built
for this purpose and many of them still contain elements of such use.
The objector also expresses concern over inappropriate alterations to
the fabric of the building, however, the Conservation Officer considers
the alterations proposed to be acceptable and suggests conditions to
be attached to the listed building consent. It will be seen, in 3 above,
that the more recent listed building consent application to replace the
roof structure has been refused as the method of construction was
considered inappropriate, using steel beams instead of timber. An
informative restricting approval to those details indicated only is
therefore recommended as appropriate to add to this listed building
consent application, to avoid any misinterpretation of this approval.
Approval is recommended.
8 EQUALITIES IMPLICATIONS
None.
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
No: BH2004/01072/FP Ward: ROTTINGDEAN COASTAL
Address: 2a Eley Crescent
Proposal: Single storey ground floor extension to rear of existing disabled
person’s accommodation (Retrospective).
Officer: Karen Tipper, tel: 293335 Received
Date:
30 March 2004
Con Area: N/A Expiry Date: 25 May 2004
Agent: T. Scoble , 2 Madeira Place
Applicant
:
Mr C. Dubery, 2a Eley Crescent
1 RECOMMENDATION
Grant planning permission, subject to the following conditions:
1. Full Planning.
2. The rendering to the disabled person’s accommodation and the
store should be painted to match the existing dwelling within one
month of the date of this permission.
Reason: To safeguard the visual amenity of adjoining neighbouring
properties and comply with policy QD27 of the Brighton & Hove
Local Plan Second Deposit Draft.
Informatives:
1. This decision is based on T. Scoble’s drawing nos. 2a/EC/01,
2a/EC/02, 2a/EC/03, 2a/EC/04, submitted on 29th March and 7th
April 2004.
2. This decision to grant Planning Permission has been taken having
regard to the policies and proposals in the Brighton Borough Local
Plan and the Brighton & Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft set
out below, and to all relevant material considerations:
Brighton Borough Local Plan
ENV.3 – Extensions and alterations should be to a high standard of
design
ENV.5 – Extensions and alterations should be well sited.
ENV.6 – Overlooking and loss of privacy
Brighton and Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft
QD14 – Extensions and alterations
QD27 – Protection of amenity
2 THE SITE
The site consists a single storey bungalow with an attached ancillary
and extension for a single storey disabled person’s accommodation. A
rear single storey store, which is lower than the extension, due to the
gradient of the rear garden has been built. The store can be seen from
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
12 and 14 Court Ord Road and 3 Eley Drive.
3 RELEVANT HISTORY
BH2002/02353/FP - Extension to form en-suite disabled person’s
accommodation. Approved 9th October 2002.
4 THE APPLICATION
This is a retrospective application for a single storey ground floor store
room extension, approximately 2.75 metres deep and 3.9 metres wide.
It has been rendered to match the existing extension with a flat roof.
5 CONSULTATIONS
Neighbours: 3 letters of objection received from 1 and 3 Eley Drive and
14 Court Ord Road on the grounds that the building is clearly visible
from the properties and is considered unsightly and dominant.
Rottingdean Parish Council objects on the grounds that the design is
out of place and dominates the gardens of 12 and 14 Court Ord Road.
Its appearance, in particular from 12 Court Ord Road is particularly
inappropriate.
6 PLANNING POLICIES
Brighton Borough Local Plan
ENV.3 – Extensions and alterations should be to a high standard of
design
ENV.5 – Extensions and alterations should be well sited.
ENV.6 – Overlooking and loss of privacy
D.1 – needs of disabled applicants
Brighton and Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft
QD14 – Extensions and alterations
QD27 – Protection of amenity
7 CONSIDERATIONS
The main concern is whether the store has caused any adverse harm
to the site and any of the adjoining properties.
There appears to be some confusion as to exactly what the current
application relates to. For example, two neighbours have objected to
an additional storey being built onto the existing structure, although this
is not what has been applied for. The application is for retrospective
permission for a single-storey storeroom, which was attached to the
approved and constructed disabled person’s extension without
consent. The store does not have any external windows or doors as
access is gained through a trap door within the extension, therefore,
there has been no loss of privacy or increased overlooking. It is
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
recognised that the disabled person’s extension as well as the store are
visible from properties in Court Ord Road, in particular number 12;
however, the store room extension is considerably lower and relatively
small in comparison the approved accommodation. It is therefore
recommended that the rendering be painted to match the original
dwelling in order to protect the visual amenity of the adjoining
residential properties.
8 EQUALITIES IMPLICATIONS
None identified in relation to this store room.
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
No: BH2004/01190/FP Ward: PATCHAM
Address: 7 Beechwood Close
Proposal: Construction of side extension with roof extension above
including two rear dormers and installation of two front
rooflights. Demolition of existing garage and conservatory, and
construction of new rear conservatory. (Re-submission of
Refused application BH2004/00130/FP)
Officer: Trisha Taylor, tel: 291709 Received
Date:
05 April 2004
Con Area: N/A Expiry Date: 31 May 2004
Agent: Jon Andrews Ltd., Chilcote, Threals Lane, West Chiltington, West
Sussex
Applicant
:
Mr L Rowland, 7 Beechwood Close
1 RECOMMENDATION
Grant planning permission, subject to the following conditions:
1. 01.01 Full Planning Permission.
2. 03.02B Materials to match Non-Cons Area (B).
Informatives:
1. This decision is based on drawing nos. 427/02 and 03 submitted on
5 April 2004.
2. This decision to grant Planning Permission has been taken having
regard to the policies and proposals in the Brighton Borough Local
Plan and Brighton & Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft set out
below, and to all relevant material considerations, including
SPGBH1:
Brighton Borough Local Plan:
ENV.3 Design in the built environment
ENV.5 Extensions and alterations to houses and commercial
properties
ENV.6 Extensions and alterations to houses and commercial
properties
ENV.7 Extensions and alterations to houses and commercial
properties
Brighton and Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft:
QD1 Design – quality of development and design statements
QD14 Extensions and alterations
QD27 Protection of amenity
2 THE SITE
The site is located on the southern side of Beechwood Close, and
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
contains a single storey, detached dwelling. There is an existing single
storey detached garage located at the front of the site, with vehicle
access from Beechwood Close.
3 RELEVANT HISTORY
BH2004/00130/FP: Demolition of existing garage and construction of
two storey side extension with conversion of roofspace, including two
rear dormers, rooflights to front and side, and construction of a rear
conservatory. Refused.
4 THE APPLICATION
The applicant seeks approval for the construction of a side extension
with roof extension above including two rear dormers and installation
of two front rooflights. Demolition of existing garage and conservatory,
and construction of new rear conservatory.
5 CONSULTATIONS
Neighbours: 6 Beechwood Close, objects to the proposal on the
grounds that the proposed roof extension represents a significant
encroachment upon their privacy and the dormer windows will result in
loss of light, overlooking and loss of privacy. Furthermore, it is
considered that the proposed conversion will be out of character with
the surrounding bungalows that have no modifications to the roofline.
6 PLANNING POLICIES
Brighton Borough Local Plan:
ENV.3 - Design in the built environment
ENV.5 - Extensions and alterations to houses and commercial
properties
ENV.6 - Extensions and alterations to houses and commercial properties
ENV.7 - Extensions and alterations to houses and commercial properties
Brighton and Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft:
QD1 - Design – quality of development and design statements
QD14 - Extensions and alterations
QD27 - Protection of amenity
Supplementary Planning Guidance on Roof Alterations and Extensions
(SPGBH1).
7 CONSIDERATIONS
The previous application sought approval for the demolition of existing
garage and construction of two-storey side extension with conversion
of roofspace, including two rear dormers, rooflights to front and side,
and construction of a rear conservatory. This application was refused
on the grounds that the roof alterations would have a detrimental
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
impact on the character and design on the dwelling and surrounding
streetscape and residential amenities of the area. It was also
considered that the proposed rear dormers by virtue of excessive width
and height, positioning and materials would represent incongruous
and poorly designed features harmful to the character of the property
and the surrounding area.
This application differs from the previous application in that the
proposed roof extension does not relate to the western side of the
dwelling area at all, and the general size of the roof extension on the
eastern side of the dwelling has been reduced. The roofline slopes
from an extended main ridge down to the eaves of the new garage.
The size of the rear dormers has been reduced, and the rear
conservatory has been enlarged.
The applicant proposes to demolish an existing garage at the side of
the dwelling, towards the front of the site. The proposal will provide an
integral garage at the side of the existing dwelling. The
kitchen/breakfast room will be extended and a new stairwell/landing
created.
The ground floor side extension will be built approximately 1.0m from
the common boundary with no. 6. The roof will slope away from the
dwelling at no. 6. The dwelling at no. 6 is elevated above the
application site, reducing the impact of the side extension.
The new front building line will be set back from the front building line
at no 6., ensuring that it does not affect the outlook from front
windows.
The proposed rear conservatory extension, although replacing an
existing conservatory, will be located away from the common
boundary with no. 8 Beechwood Close, and will not affect amenities
enjoyed by this property.
The rear conservatory will be located adjacent to the common
boundary with no. 6 Beechwood Close. The dwelling at no. 6 is located
approximately 4m from the boundary, and there is an existing glass
house between the house and the boundary. It is considered that
there is sufficient separation distance between the dwelling at no. 6
and the proposed conservatory to avoid any detrimental impact upon
the amenities of this property.
The proposed side facing ground floor window (landing) and roof lights
(bathroom, landing and bedroom) will face the side of the glass house
and will not give rise to any significant loss of privacy.
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
The rear dormer windows will face the rear garden and the side wall of
the dwelling at 11 Surrenden Close. There is existing boundary
vegetation to prevent overlooking and loss of privacy.
Beechwood Close slopes downwards in a westerly direction from
Beechwood Avenue. The dwelling at no. 7 is detached, and is located
within a row of similar looking bungalows on the southern side of
Beechwood Close. Further north, and opposite the application site,
there have been several front dormers constructed, altering the
general external appearance of the dwellings. It is assumed that these
have been constructed under Permitted Development rights.
The applicant has reduced the size of the two proposed rear dormers.
They are evenly spaced, set back from the eaves line and are set
down from the main ridge of the dwelling. It is considered that the new
dormers are of a more appropriate scale and size in relation to the rest
of the dwelling.
There has been one objection raised to the proposal. As already
noted, it is considered that the proposal will not have a detrimental
impact upon the amenities of the adjacent residential properties.
Although the property is located within a row of bungalows which
remain largely unaltered when viewed from the street, there are
several properties in the vicinity of the application site which have
undertaken substantial alterations to the roof area, resulting in an
overall non-uniformity in the street.
8 EQUALITIES IMPLICATIONS
None identified.
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
No: BH2004/01266/OA Ward: PATCHAM
Address: Rear Garden, Highmead, London Road
Proposal: Outline Application for the erection of a single dwelling.
Officer: Andy Watt, tel: 292525 Received
Date:
14 April 2004
Con Area: N/A Expiry Date: 09 June 2004
Agent: N/A
Applicant
:
Mr & Mrs K Clay, Highmead, London Road
1 RECOMMENDATION
Refuse Planning Permission for the following reasons:
1. The proposal would represent unsustainable development on a site
outside the developed area and not allocated for housing within
the emerging Brighton and Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft.
The review process for the emerging Local Plan has demonstrated
that a sufficient supply of housing land to meet the city’s Structure
Plan housing requirement is available elsewhere within the urban
area. The proposal would therefore be contrary to guidance given
within PPG3: Housing and to Policies S1, S5 and H9 of the East
Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policies
HO1 and NC6 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan Second Deposit
Draft.
2. The proposed subdivision of the plot would represent backland
development untypical of this area, which would detract from the
character of the adjacent countryside and set an unwelcome
precedent for other plots on Braypool Lane/London Road to be
similarly subdivided. The proposal would contribute to a higher
than necessary density of housing units here for which there is no
justification and would be contrary to advice given in PPG7: The
Countryside and to Policy NC6 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan
Second Deposit Draft.
Informative:
This decision is based on the information submitted on 14 April 2004.
2 THE SITE
The site forms the southern and eastern part of a plot currently
occupied by a dwelling known as Highmead. It is bounded by
Braypool Lane to the east; a footpath runs along the western boundary
of the plot, beyond which lies the A23 (London Road) with the main
Brighton to London railway line running parallel. To the north is the
neighbouring property, Ben-Ma-Chree; to the south, a new dwelling
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
has been built to the front of the plot (Amberleigh). Land slopes down
from east to west. The general area is characterised by 15 single-storey
or chalet-type detached dwellings with the RSPCA animal shelter, 2
larger dwellings and recreation ground at the end of the road. Further
to the south lies the A27 Brighton bypass.
The Brighton & Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft defines this area
as countryside which is outside the urban/development boundary,
although the Brighton Borough Plan envisages some housing
development in Braypool Lane.
3 RELEVANT HISTORY
8/118/708.49/148: Portable garage – granted 8 March 1949.
BH2003/02571/OA: Erection of a single dwelling – refused 26 September
2003.
BH2003/03674/OA: Erection of a single dwelling (re-submission of
BH2003/02571/OA) – refused 15 January 2004.
The following applications on different sites in Braypool Lane are also
relevant:
BH1997/01852/OA: Outline application for the erection of a single
storey dwelling with rooms in the roof (Plot 1 [between Sunny Bank and
Bromleigh]) – granted 2 February 1998 [but never implemented and
permission lapsed].
BH1997/01853/OA: Outline application for the erection of a single
storey dwelling with rooms in the roof (Plot 2 [between Charmcot and
Guisboro]) – granted 2 February 1998 [but never implemented and
permission lapsed].
BH1997/01854/OA: Outline application for the erection of a single
storey dwelling with rooms in the roof (Plot 3 [between The Mount and
Highmead]) – granted 2 February 1998 [but never implemented and
permission lapsed].
BH1997/01855/OA: Outline application for the erection of two single
storey dwellings with rooms in the roof (Plot 4 [adjacent to Ben-Ma-
Chree]) – granted 2 February 1998 [but never implemented].
BH2000/00337/OA: Outline application for the erection of two single
storey dwellings with rooms in the roof (amendment to outline
permission BH1997/01855/OA) (Plot 4 [adjacent to Ben-Ma-Chree]) –
granted 25 April 2000.
BH2000/02488/RM: Reserved matters application for approval of siting,
design and materials persuant to permission ref: BH1997/01855/OA for
the erection of two single storey dwellings with rooms in the roof (Plot 4
[adjacent to Ben-Ma-Chree]) – granted 6 December 2000.
BH2002/00945/OA: Erection of a single dwelling house (Vacant plot
between Bromleigh and Sunnybank) – refused 21 August 2002.
BH2002/00946/OA: Erection of a single dwelling house (Plot between
Charmcot and Guisboro) – refused 2 August 2002; allowed on appeal
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
23 October 2003.
BH2002/01166/OA: Erection of a single dwelling (Land between The
Mount and Highmead) – refused 5 July 2002.
BH2002/03180/OA: Erection of a single dwelling (Land between The
Mount and Highmead) – granted by the Sub-Committee 17 January
2003.
BH2003/00238/OA: Erection of a single dwelling house (Re-submission
following refusal of application BH2002/00946/OA) (Vacant plot of land
between Charmcot and Guisboro [Plot 2]) – refused 10 April 2003;
superseded by grant of planning permission on appeal 23 October
2003 [see above].
BH2003/00534/OA: Erection of single dwelling house (Plot 1 adjoining
Sunnybank and Bromleigh) – refused 10 April 2003.
BH2003/01183/RM: Erection of a chalet bungalow with detached
garage (Plot between The Mount and Highmead) – refused 4 June
2003.
BH2003/02276/RM: Re-submission of refused reserved matters
application BH2003/01183/RM (Plot between The Mount and
Highmead) – granted 9 September 2003.
4 THE APPLICATION
Outline planning permission is again sought for the erection of a single
dwellinghouse, following two recent refusals. No siting has been shown
and no details of means of access, design, landscaping or external
appearance have been submitted. It is intended for the plot to be
subdivided lengthways, with a dog-leg at the western end. This is to
allow the existing dwelling to remain in situ. The new dwelling will
replace six outbuildings, including a garage, and its access will be
directly onto Braypool Lane.
5 CONSULTATIONS
External:
Neighbours:
7 letters in support of the application from Charmcot, Braypool Lane; 25
Chelwood Close; 31 Cuckmere Way; 7 Ditchling Crescent; 22 Glenfalls
Avenue; 94 Roedale Road; and 13 Windsor Court, Tongdean Lane
stating that the proposal will provide an affordable dwelling for the
applicants’ eldest son and his family, rather than for financial gain. It is
stated also that the plot is large enough to accommodate two
dwellings.
1 letter expressing no objection from The Mount, London Road.
Cllr Brian Pidgeon: Supports proposal – applicants wish to build a
bungalow for their son and are not developers. Proposed dwelling will
be built on site of another bungalow, demolished some years ago.
Now the land is in a derelict condition. Believes that plot of land is
brownfield; fails to see how it can be called greenfield. Three
developments have been allowed within metres of this proposal over
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
the last few months. Requests site visit.
Internal:
Environmental Health (Comments as previous applications: Given the
approved dwelling on the adjacent site as a result of the public inquiry,
then the noise argument will not be argued here. No objection,
therefore, subject to conditions being imposed for road/railway noise
mitigation measures and refuse storage.
Planning Policy (Adapted from previous similar applications in this
area): The adopted 1995 Brighton Borough Plan allocates the plots of
land along Braypool Lane as a housing site under HP4. The site, at that
time, fell within the defined built-up area and would accord with policy
ENV.2 ii). Since then, the planning policy framework has changed
considerably both at national and local level. The review of the local
plan has been through two deposit stages and the Public Inquiry
began in September 2002. The proposals map shows that Braypool
Lane is now excluded from the defined built-up area and the previous
housing allocation (as detailed above) no longer exists. It should be
noted that there have been no objections to these specific changes.
The relevant policy for this area to consider now is NC6 as indicated on
the proposals map. NC6 seeks to resist development outside the built-
up area boundary as defined on the proposals map. The policy states
that exceptions will only be made where there will be no significant
adverse impact on the countryside/downland and at least one of the
four criteria a) to d) as set out in the policy apply. Criteria a) states that
the proposal must be specifically identified as a site allocation
elsewhere in the Plan and siting is shown and complies with the
proposals map. Criteria b) states that a countryside location must be
justified, for example, proposals reasonably necessary for the efficient
operation of farms, horticulture or forestry. Criteria c) states that in
appropriate cases and where enhancements to the
countryside/downland will result, proposals for quiet informal recreation
may be permissable. Criteria d) refers to changes of use of existing
buildings which are in keeping with their surroundings and are of a
sound and permanent construction. None of the above criteria are
met by this proposal.
The changes between the adopted and revised local plan are justified
on sustainability grounds with particular reference to government
planning policy guidance for housing development as set out in PPG3
(March 2000), the publication of which preceded the first deposit
Brighton & Hove Local Plan (September 2000). The plot subject of the
application is a previously developed site, poorly served in terms of
local facilities and public transport accessibility. PPG3 gives priority to
the re-use of previously developed land within urban areas in
preference to the development of greenfield sites (paras 31 and 32,
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
PPG3). Furthermore, para. 40 of PPG3 is also relevant. This advises that
issues of sustainability mean that local planning authorities should
review thoroughly all applications to renew planning permissions,
particularly by comparison with available previously-developed sites
(para. 31) and the presumption in favour of development on previously
developed sites (para.32).
The preparation of the Brighton &Hove Local Plan demonstrates that a
sufficient supply of housing land will come forward from within the built
up area so as not to warrant further land releases outside the urban
area in accordance with PPG3.
Policy QD19 on Greenways is also relevant, but not considered an
overriding consideration. The proposals map shows an (indicative)
greenway that extends along Braypool Lane. ‘Greenways’ are
defined by the Countryside Agency as ‘largely car-free off-road routes
connecting people to facilities and open spaces in and around towns,
cities and to the countryside for shared use by people of all abilities on
foot, bike or horseback, for commuting, play or leisure’. QD19 states
that development within the setting of a Greenway will be required to
contribute to the provision and/or enhancement of the network,
proportional to the development and its potential impact on the
greenway. Planning permission will not be granted for proposals that
are likely to hinder the provision of a proposed section or harm the
existing greenway network or its objectives.
Traffic Manager: No objections in principle. The number of vehicle
spaces exceeds our maximum allowance and should be reduced.
Cycle parking should be secure and covered.
6 PLANNING POLICIES
PPG3: Housing
PPG7: The Countryside
East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011:
S1 – Twenty one criteria for the 21st century
S5 – Urban Areas – Definition of development boundaries
H9 – Maximising housing provision within urban areas
Brighton Borough Local Plan:
ENV.1 – General policies and objectives
ENV.2 – General policies and objectives
ENV.3 – Design in the built environment
H.2 – Maximising the supply and use of housing in the built up area
H.6 and HP.4 – New housing development
Brighton and Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft:
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
TR17 – Parking standards
QD1 – Design – quality of development and design statements
QD2 – Design – key principles for neighbourhoods
QD3 – Design – efficient and effective use of sites
QD4 – Design – strategic impact
QD19 – Greenways
QD27 – Protection of amenity
HO1 – Housing sites and mixed use sites with an element of housing
NC6 – Development in the countryside/downland
7 CONSIDERATIONS
Principle of residential development:
Policy HP4 of the Brighton Borough Local Plan allocated the
application site for housing. Subsequently, in 2000, the Government
published PPG3: Housing, which significantly revised national guidance
on dealing with housing proposals. It places a strong emphasis upon
the effective and efficient use of urban land. The national guidance
introduced a sequential approach to housing provision, giving priority
to the reuse of previously developed land and the reuse/conversion of
existing buildings within urban areas over the development of sites
outside. Paragraph 65 of PPG3 emphasises that “development [which]
should take place outside existing urban areas will depend on … the
capacity of existing urban areas to accommodate additional housing.
Where development has to take place outside urban areas, the
Government is looking to Local Planning Authorities to utilise the most
sustainable option”.
PPG3 therefore seeks critical appraisal of sites on which housing
development is sought, in the interests of sustainability. In the light of
the guidance in PPG3 and policies within the adopted Structure Plan
and the emerging Local Plan, the proposed site is not appropriate for
housing given its location outside the built up area and
notwithstanding the previous dwelling on the site. Given the
advanced stage that the Brighton and Hove Local Plan Second
Deposit Draft has reached, significant weight should be accorded to its
policies.
PPG3 requires all local planning authorities to undertake an urban
housing capacity study, which should identify how much additional
housing can be accommodated within the urban area and how much
greenfield or other land will be needed. The Housing Land Supply
Assessment within the emerging Local Plan demonstrates that a 6.7
year housing land supply exists in the city, exceeding the five year
supply required. Given the findings of housing survey work feeding into
the Local Plan and urban housing capacity study, the Council does
not foresee a need to allow development on sites outside the
development boundary in addition to the list of allocated sites and
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
windfall development.
Overall, the Council has identified a housing land supply in excess of
five years with the overwhelming majority on brownfield sites.
Allocated sites, in conjunction with non-greenfield windfall sites, are
considered sufficient to meet the city’s housing needs over the life of
the emerging Local Plan. It is not therefore considered that the
proposed housing development can be justified as it would represent
unsustainable development and would prejudice the Council’s efforts
to maximise the effective use of urban land.
Backland development:
The above is backed up by PPG7, which states that: “new house
building … in the open countryside, away from established settlements
or from areas allocated for development in development plans, should
be strictly controlled. The fact that a single house on a particular site
would be unobtrusive it not by itself a good argument; it could be
repeated too often … Sensitive infilling of small gaps within small
groups of houses or minor extensions to groups may … be acceptable
though much would depend on the character of the surroundings and
the number of such groups in the area” (Para 3.21). So whilst three infill
plots of land in this area have been granted planning permission (the
first by Committee decision [between Highmead and The Mount], the
second by an Appeal Inspector [between Charmcot and Guisboro],
and the third under delegated powers [between Sunny Bank and
Bromleigh] due entirely to the two precedents set above) – in the
Inspector’s case, expressing support for infill development in the
manner envisaged by PPG7 – no such precedent has been set for
backland development, for which this application seeks to set a trend.
In general, dwellings in this area are sited on the western part of each
plot towards London Road, where they originally fronted prior to its
widening and the A27 bypass being constructed to the south. Each
plot contains one dwelling and possesses a sizeable front garden to
Braypool Lane, features which form the essential rural character of this
area. Whilst two dwellings adjacent to Ben-Ma-Chree were built
fronting Braypool Lane, they are sited at the end of this group of
buildings before the RSPCA shelter. This is breaking down with
Amberleigh being granted reserved matters approval in September
2003 for its siting towards Braypool Lane, largely on the grounds of noise
mitigation (from the London Road and railway line). In the middle of
this group of dwellings on Braypool Lane, it is considered that building a
dwelling forward of an existing property would be an inappropriate
and insensitive form of development in this countryside location,
contributing to a higher than necessary density of housing units here for
which there is no justification. The only logical siting of this property
would be immediately adjacent to Amberleigh, and the dog-leg
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
subdivision of the plot is without precedent in this area. The Local
Planning Authority would find it difficult to resist further pressure from
homeowners on Braypool Lane to subdivide their plots in whatever
manner they wish.
Impact upon neighbouring properties:
Adjoining houses are located towards the western end of their plots.
Given the sloping sites, some potential for overlooking from the
proposed dwelling could result, especially to Highmead, but only
perhaps if vegetation is removed. This could be imposed through
condition. The southern boundary to Amberleigh could be
reinvigorated through additional planting. Now that Amberleigh has
been built, it is possible to judge the impact on this property. There are
two ground floor windows, glazed door and rooflights above. One
window serves a utility room (non-habitable for the purposes of loss of
light); the other serves a kitchen, but this room benefits from another
west-facing window also serving a breakfast room. It is therefore not
considered that any overlooking or loss of light could be demonstrated
to this property.
Noise:
This issue was considered by the Inspector at the recent public inquiry
on the site between Charmcot and Guisboro. Given the finding that it
will be possible to provide adequate noise mitigation measures
through condition, then this issue will not be argued for this application,
as it was hitherto for most others in the vicinity.
Conclusions:
This site lies outside the developed area and is not allocated as a
housing site in the emerging Brighton and Hove Local Plan Second
Deposit Draft. PPG3 and policies within the adopted Structure Plan
and emerging Local Plan seek to encourage the best use of urban
land and avoid the unnecessary development of sites outside urban
areas. The proposal would represent unsustainable development and
prejudice the Council’s efforts to maximise the use and reuse of urban
sites. Refusal is recommended.
8 EQUALITIES IMPLICATIONS
No issues arising from this outline application. Appropriate access
arrangements for all could be secured at the reserved matters stage,
and part M of the Building Regulations would apply.
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
No: BH2004/00978/FP Ward: PRESTON PARK
Address: 32 Buxton Road
Proposal: Installation of 3 no. rooflights to front roof slope, dormer to rear
roof slope incorporating alterations and heighten of existing
roof.
Officer: Lorraine Gardiner, tel:
293990
Received
Date:
25 March 2004
Con Area: N/A Expiry Date: 20 May 2004
Agent: McCurdy Consulting Ltd, 5 Chantonbury Road, Hove
Applicant
:
Gill and Andy Hasson, 32 Buxton Road
1 RECOMMENDATION
Refuse Planning Permission for the following reasons:
1. The proposed dormer by virtue of its design, size and positioning to
the rear elevation of this property is considered excessively large
and out of keeping with the house and detrimental to the area and
street scene in general, contrary to policies ENV.1, ENV.3 and ENV.5
of the Brighton Borough Local Plan and QD1 and QD14 of the
Brighton & Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft and
Supplementary Planning Guidance Note 1: Roof Alterations and
Extensions.
2. The proposed rooflights by virtue of their number and positioning to
the front elevation are considered to overdominate the roof slope
and create a cluttered effect that is visually detrimental to this
property and the street scene in general, contrary to policies ENV.1,
ENV.3 and ENV.5 of the Brighton Borough Local Plan and QD1 and
QD14 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft and
Supplementary Planning Guidance Note 1: Roof Alterations and
Extensions.
3. The proposed increase in the roof height would unbalance this pair
of semi-detached houses and detract from the unity of their design.
This is detrimental to the character and appearance of these
properties and the streetscene in general and is contrary to policies
ENV.1, ENV.3 and ENV.5 of the Brighton Borough Local Plan and QD1
and QD14 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft
along with the Supplementary Planning Guidance Note 1: Roof
Alterations and Extensions.
Informatives:
1. This decision is based on drawing no 027-03/1 and accompanying
location plan submitted on 25th March 2004.
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
2 THE SITE
The property is a 2-storey semi-detached dwellinghouse situated along
the east side of Buxton Road. The properties are fairly uniform in their
appearance apart from a few unusually designed properties that are
situated midway within Buxton Road. The area consists mainly of semi-
detached units that sit on a slight gradient that slopes down
southwards from the application site. The properties at No.36 and 34
have both had roof alterations that are similar to what No.32 has
applied for.
3 RELEVANT HISTORY
BH2001/02273/FP: Alterations to existing roof to form pitched roof (to
match adjoining property) at 34 Buxton Road – Granted 31.10.01.
BN84/1550/F: New pitched roof to replace existing part flat roof at 36
Buxton Road – Granted 20.11.84.
4 THE APPLICATION
The applicant is proposing to increase the height of the building by
introducing a pitched roof approximately 1.5m higher than the existing
part flat roof. There would also be a rear dormer extension extending
across the entire building and 3 rooflights to the front.
5 CONSULTATIONS
External:
Neighbours: 30, 34 & 36 Buxton Road & 2a Stafford Road supports the
application on the basis that the roof alterations would not imbalance
or adversely affect these two semi-detached properties, there are
other similar rear dormer extensions and that it will have limited visual
impact on the front elevation, and the roof alterations will have
minimal visual impact and that the gable is being preserved.
6 PLANNING POLICIES
Brighton Borough Local Plan
ENV.1 - General Policies and Objectives
ENV.3 - Extensions and Alterations
ENV.5 - Extensions and Alterations
Brighton & Hove Local Plan 2nd Deposit Draft
QD1 – Design – Quality of development and design statements
QD14 - Extensions and Alterations
SPGBH1 – Roof Alterations and Extensions
7 CONSIDERATIONS
When considering an application of this nature, consideration is given
to how the proposals impact on the house, the adjoining property and
the street scene and the amenity of the adjoining properties.
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
Rooflights: The proposed number of rooflights is considered excessive
for a front elevation roof slope. The introduction of 3 rooflights
dominates the roofslope and creates a cluttered effect to the front of
this property. This is contrary to Supplementary Planning Guidance
Note 1 Roof Alterations and Extensions, which states that roof lights
should be kept as few and as small as possible and should relate well
to the scale and proportions of the elevation below. They should not
dominate the roof and are best restricted to the rear elevation of the
property if possible.
Dormer: The flat-roofed dormer as designed is far too large for this rear
roofslope. Its massing dominates the property and adversely affects
the character and appearance of the house. Again this is contrary to
the SPG advice on Roof Alterations and Extensions, which states that
dormers should be kept as small as possible. There should be no large
areas of cladding either side of the window or below it. There is
evidence of dormers of similar style, particularly at No.34 and
properties situated on Upper Hamilton Road; however, these appear to
have been constructed under permitted development rights.
Alteration to roof height: Any alteration to the existing roof height of a
property has to have regard to the overall building as a whole and
reflect the character and appearance of the original house. The
introduction of the higher, pitched, roof to this property is considered to
create an unbalanced feature to these semi-detached properties and
is contrary to Council guidance which states that altering a roof’s basic
form or ridge height would not be appropriate. This is detrimental to
the unity of these two properties and the uniformed setting of the street
scene in general.
Protection of Amenity: The application does not create any material
overlooking or overshadowing to the adjacent neighbours.
Conclusion:
Although there has been similar development within the area each
case has to be considered on its individual merits. The application is
contrary to the SPG on Roof Alterations and Extensions and relevant
local plan policies and should therefore be refused.
8 EQUALITIES IMPLICATIONS
None identified.
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
No: BH2004/00959/FP Ward: REGENCY
Address: 70 East Street
Proposal: Installation of new shopfront (Re-submission following refusal of
application BH2003/02262/FP).
Officer: Andy Watt, tel: 292525 Received
Date:
23 March 2004
Con Area: OLD TOWN Expiry Date: 18 May 2004
Agent: Robert Brandt Associates, 32 Clifton Hill, Brighton
Applicant
:
Time Asset Management Ltd, 306A Portland Road, Hove
1 RECOMMENDATION
Grant Planning Permission subject to the following conditions:
1. 01.01 Full Planning Permission.
2. Detailed sections, shown at a scale of 1:1, showing the relationship
of the glazing to the pilasters and to the adjacent doorway’s
timber surround shall be submitted to and approved in writing by
the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of
development. The works shall be implemented in accordance
with the approved details.
Reason: To safeguard the character and appearance of the
building and Old Town Conservation Area, to comply with Policies
ENV.9 and ENV.22 of the Brighton Borough Local Plan and Policies
QD10 and HE6 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan Second Deposit
Draft.
3. Samples of the entrance tiling shall be submitted to and approved
in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the
commencement of development. The works shall be
implemented in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To safeguard the character and appearance of the
building and Old Town Conservation Area, to comply with Policies
ENV.9 and ENV.22 of the Brighton Borough Local Plan and Policies
QD10 and HE6 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan Second Deposit
Draft.
4. The pilasters and fascia shall be painted to match the rest of the
building’s masonry and thereafter be retained.
Reason: To safeguard the character and appearance of the
building and Old Town Conservation Area, to comply with Policies
ENV.9 and ENV.22 of the Brighton Borough Local Plan and Policies
QD10 and HE6 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan Second Deposit
Draft.
Informatives:
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
1. This decision is based on drawing no. 227/02/L/A Rev A submitted
on 19 May 2004.
2. This decision to grant Planning Permission has been taken having
regard to the policies and proposals in the Brighton Borough Local
Plan and Brighton & Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft set out
below, and to all relevant material considerations, including
Supplementary Planning Guidance:
Brighton Borough Local Plan:
ENV.1 – General objectives and policies
ENV.3 – Design in the built environment
ENV.9 – Shopfronts
ENV.22 – Conservation areas – general policies
Brighton & Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft:
QD10 – Shopfronts
QD27 – Protection of amenity
HE6 – Development within or affecting the setting of Conservation
Areas
2 THE SITE
Three-storey mid-terraced building with roof conversion and
balustrading to the front. It is located on eastern side of East Street
within Old Town Conservation Area. Building is in use as a restaurant on
ground floor with flats above.
3 RELEVANT HISTORY
79/2563: Alterations to change use of ground floor from retail shop to
restaurant – granted 6 November 1979.
BN90/1145/F and BN90/1146/CAC: New shop front, works to rear
including replacement of extract duct and demolition of chimney and
removal of front balcony and re-instatement to match existing –
granted 10 September 1990.
91/0851/FP: Relaxation of Condition 2 on approved application
BN90/1145/F and BN90/1146/CAC which requires the shop threshold to
be flush – granted 7 April 1992.
BH2003/02262/FP: Installation of new shopfront (retrospective) – refused
28 August 2003.
4 THE APPLICATION
Further to a refusal of a retrospective application for a replacement
shopfront, this application now seeks consent for a new design of
shopfront. Rather than opening out the premises with a set of opening
and bi-fold doors and non-openable sections standing in a single line,
the proposal is now more traditional in style. It proposes a recessed
entrance and full-glazed shopfront section; the latter stands on a
platform some 20cm proud of the street, while the former benefits from
a disabled access beyond. This was amended from the original
scheme which did not propose any disabled access.
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
5 CONSULTATIONS
External:
Neighbours: 11A East Street: Objects – new opening will result in a loss
of privacy and noise hazard.
Internal:
Conservation & Design (comments on original proposal): The existing
shopfront is a very unattractive pseudo traditional folding door fully
opening shopfront, which is poorly proportioned and detailed and with
too deep bottom panels to the doors. The shopfront projects too far
from the face of the building and this detracts from the balcony with its
decorative cast iron balustrading above. Its pilasters and fascia are
also poorly related to the building. Their removal is most welcome.
Whilst with a building of this type, one would normally require a well
detailed and proportioned traditional shopfront, site investigations
reveal that this would not be feasible, due to the presence of existing
steel supports. In view of this, an alternative approach of reinstating the
pilasters to their original state and going for a sleek, minimalist all-glass
modern shopfront was felt to be the best way forward. In view of this,
the design of the shopfront is acceptable.
However, a fascia board is proposed above. This should be omitted
and the original masonry plain fascia re-exposed and made good.
Individual halo lit metal lettering could then be mounted on this, or
alternatively, individual internally illuminated lettering suspended
behind the glass of the shopfront.
No provision has been made for disabled access and consideration
should be given to the feasibility of an internal ramp or wheelchair
platform lift within the shop and having a level entrance threshold for
the entrance door. There could be a certain amount of ramping within
the external entrance recess. This would not compromise the
architectural integrity of the design.
6 PLANNING POLICIES
Brighton Borough Local Plan:
ENV.1 – General objectives and policies
ENV.3 – Design in the built environment
ENV.9 – Shopfronts
ENV.22 – Conservation areas – general policies
Brighton & Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft:
QD10 – Shopfronts
QD27 – Protection of amenity
HE6 – Development within or affecting the setting of Conservation
Areas
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
7 CONSIDERATIONS
Impact of proposal on Old Town Conservation Area:
Prior to 2003 the previous shopfront was modern and a little unusual but
nonetheless elegant and stylish. Its entrance was heavily recessed and
the glass bricks and circular non-structural column added interest. The
surround was clad in marble facing, bringing a unity and clarity of form
to the shopfront, crowned with highly understated lettering on the
fascia. The glazing was etched in places and framed with slimline
timber in a larger squared pattern, reflecting the style of the glass bricks
and lending itself most readily as a recognisable oriental design to
complement the restaurant itself.
The existing shopfront was constructed without the benefit of planning
permission and was subsequently refused when applied for last year. It
was considered a wholly unsympathetic example of a shopfront in this
Conservation Area, clearly accentuated by its bright yellow painted
façade. The timber frames and joinery appeared much heavier than
they need to be, which resulted in the appearance, as the
Conservation Officer described it then, of a ‘railway carriage’. It did
not read as a traditional shopfront, due to the lack of a recessed
entrance which would otherwise give it definition. No provision was
made for people with mobility difficulties.
The current proposal has sought to right this wrong and does so
successfully. Whilst existing steel supports preclude the design of a well
proportioned and traditional shopfront, an alternative approach of
reinstating the pilasters and providing a completely glazed shopfront is
the correct one. The heavy fascia board proposed above has been
removed, to leave plain masonry exposed. This will be more sleek and
stylish, reflecting some other shopfronts in this street and harking back
to the design of the restaurant in situ before Time moved in. A disabled
access ramp has been provided internally, conforming with plan
policies and not compromising the architectural integrity of the design.
Impact on neighbouring properties:
The representation received above made reference to loss of privacy
and noise being created. However, a refusal on these grounds would
be unlikely to be upheld on appeal, especially as an A3 use has existed
at these premises for approximately 25 years.
Conclusion:
The proposal complies with plan policies and approval is therefore
recommended.
8 EQUALITIES IMPLICATIONS
The premises will be accessible to people with mobility difficulties.
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
No: BH2004/01275/FP Ward: ST. PETER'S & NORTH LAINE
Address: 4 Belton Close
Proposal: Installation of satellite antenna (inc. supporting pole) to rear
(Retrospective)
Officer: Lorraine Gardiner, tel:
293990
Received
Date:
20 April 2004
Con Area: ROUND HILL Expiry Date: 28 June 2004
Agent: N/A
Applicant
:
Ellie Dickinson, 4 Belton Close
1 RECOMMENDATION
Grant temporary planning permission, subject to the following
conditions:
1. The satellite antenna hereby permitted shall be permanently
removed from the site before 9th June 2014 and the land re-
instated to its former condition. Reason: To safeguard the
character and appearance of the Round Hill Conservation Area
and to comply with policies ENV.8 and ENV.22 of the Brighton
Borough Local Plan and QD22 and HE6 of the Brighton & Hove
Local Plan Second Deposit Draft.
Informatives:
1. This decision is based on the location plan and supporting
photographs submitted on 20th April 2004.
2. This decision to grant Planning Permission has been taken having
regard to the policies and proposals in the Brighton Borough Local
Plan and the Brighton & Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft set
out below, and to all relevant material considerations:
Brighton Borough Local Plan:
ENV.1 - General Policies and Objectives
ENV.8 - Satellite Antennas
ENV.22 - Conservation Area
ENV.27 - Conservation Area
Brighton & Hove Local Plan 2nd Deposit Draft:
QD22 – Satellite Antennas
HE6 - Development within Conservation Areas
2 THE SITE
The property is part of a recent development of 5 houses that is
situated off Belton Road and lies within the Round Hill Conservation
Area. The property is mid-terraced and the rear elevation of the
property faces directly onto the properties of 10-16 Round Hill Road
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
which sit slightly higher than the new house.
3 RELEVANT HISTORY
BH2002/00502/FP: Demolition of existing garages at rear of 9-17(odds)
Belton Road, and erection of 6 new residential units comprising 2 x 1
bed flats and 4 x 2 bed houses with 4 parking spaces and storage shed
for 8 cycles – Granted 20th August 2002 (after a Sub-Committee site
visit).
BH2002/03087/FP: Erection of single house in-lieu of 2 no. flats previously
approved under BH2002/00502/FP and 1 additional parking space –
Granted 12th February 2003.
4 THE APPLICATION
The applicant is applying retrospectively for the satellite as conditions
were attached to the original consent for the houses removing
permitted development rights. The neighbour at 10 Round Hill Road
brought this to light.
5 CONSULTATIONS
External
Neighbours: 10 Round Hill Road objects to proposal on grounds that
satellite dishes are “prohibited” in the conservation area.
6 PLANNING POLICIES
Brighton Borough Local Plan:
ENV.1 - General Policies and Objectives
ENV.8 - Satellite Antennas
ENV.22 - Conservation Area
ENV.27 - Conservation Area
Brighton & Hove Local Plan 2nd Deposit Draft:
QD22 – Satellite Antennas
HE6 - Development within Conservation Areas
7 CONSIDERATIONS
The main consideration of this application is its overall affect on the
Round Hill Conservation Area and any affect on the amenities of the
surrounding area and specifically the properties to the rear at Round
Hill Road.
The satellite dish is positioned on the rear elevation and is attached to
a pole that is 1.5m high. This means the dish is higher than the eaves of
the house, to pick up an adequate south-easterly signal. To the rear is
a retaining boundary wall that separates the garden areas of both
Belton Close and Round Hill Road. This is well over 2m in height and
there is existing shrubbery that further screens the both garden areas.
Although the satellite dish will be visible from these properties it is not
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
considered detrimental to the occupiers’ amenities and the position to
the rear means there is no visual intrusion to the front streetscape.
In conclusion, the satellite dish is positioned in a less obtrusive area to
the rear and is not visible from the front of the house. Its height in
relation to the eaves and ridge line of the roof may make it more
visible to these particular properties within Round Hill Road but it does
not significantly affect their amenities. As such the applicant has
demonstrated that the dish has been positioned in a sympathetic
manner and complies with all relevant local plan policies. Policy QD22
recommends that a maximum 10 year consent is given for this type of
development.
8 EQUALITIES IMPLICATIONS
None identified.
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
No: BH2004/01086/AD Ward: ST. PETER'S & NORTH LAINE
Address: First Floor, 6A Kensington Gardens
Proposal: Installation of one externally illuminated board sign
(Retrospective)
Officer: Lorraine Gardiner, tel:
293990
Received
Date:
11 March 2004
Con Area: NORTH LAINE Expiry Date: 03 June 2004
Agent: N/A
Applicant
:
Ms Jodi Bunnag, 6 Kensington Gardens
1 RECOMMENDATION
Grant advertisement consent, subject to the following conditions:
1. 10.01 – Standard time condition (Advert)
2. 10.02 – Clean and tidy condition (Advert)
3. 10.03 – Safety (Advert)
4. 10.04 – Removal if necessary (Advert)
5. 10.05 – Owner’s permission (Advert)
6. 10.06 – Highway safety (Advert)
7. 10.07B – Non-intermittent illumination (B)
Informatives:
1. This decision is based on the scaled drawing showing the sign,
accompanying location plan and supplementary photographs
submitted on 8th April 2004.
2. This decision to grant Advertisement Consent has been taken
having regard to the policies and proposals in the Brighton
Borough Local Plan and the Brighton & Hove Local Plan Second
Deposit Draft set out below, and to all relevant material
considerations:
Brighton Borough Local Plan:
ENV.11 - Advertisements
ENV.12 – Advertisements in Conservation Areas
Brighton & Hove Local Plan 2nd Deposit Draft:
QD12 – Advertisements
HE9 – Advertisements and Signs within Conservation Areas
2 THE SITE
This 1st floor retail property is situated within the North Laine
Conservation Area. The shop forms part of 3 other shop units that lie
within this particular part of this terraced block.
3 RELEVANT HISTORY
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
None.
4 THE APPLICATION
The applicant is retrospectively applying for advertisement consent to
display a “cartoon” like sign that is situated at first floor level to the bay
window on this shop unit. The sign is externally illuminated by a spotlight
that is concealed by the ground floor fascia and canopy. The sign is
constructed of timber and is hand-painted.
5 CONSULTATIONS
External:
Neighbours: No responses received.
North Laine Community Association: Reply awaited.
6 PLANNING POLICIES
Brighton Borough Local Plan:
ENV.11 - Advertisements
ENV.12 – Advertisements in Conservation Areas
Brighton & Hove Local Plan 2nd Deposit Draft:
QD12 – Advertisements
HE9 – Advertisements and Signs within Conservation Areas
7 CONSIDERATIONS
The only considerations in the determination of this application are
affect on the North Laine Conservation Area, its affect on this particular
building and the retail street scene in general and any possible affect
on public safety.
The position of the sign above the first floor window level is considered
contrary to the Brighton Borough Local Plan policy ENV.12 which states
that “within conservation areas, the council will generally restrict
advertising to ground floor elevations of buildings” and policy QD12 of
the Brighton & Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft which states “as
a general rule, advertisements or signs above first floor window sill level
will normally be considered out of keeping and harmful to the visual
integrity of a building and will therefore be resisted.” North Laine is
considered to be an unusual and vibrant area, not typical of other
town centre shopping areas. Its style attracts a diverse community and
each shop has its own individual character. This adds to the special
character and appearance of this Conservation Area and signage
should respect that in order to preserve and enhance the area.
Policy HE9 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft
which is to be read in conjunction with Policy QD12 states that
“Advertisements and signs within conservation areas will only be
allowed where they do not have any adverse effect on the
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
architectural and historic character or appearance of the building, a
conservation area or their settings” and “if illumination is required, the
advertisement and/or sign has individually halo or internally illuminated
letters on an unlit fascia, or is externally spot-lit.” A recent application
was refused under delegated powers for a similar (but larger) style and
position of sign at 38 Gardner Street, but solely on the grounds that its
positioning over a main window was detrimental to the building and
the Conservation Area. Another similar sign was approved in 2000 for a
“spectacle” sign for an opticians at 32 Gardner Street; this again was
at first floor level. These signs have been accepted as their
“alternative” style compliments the vibrant and diverse surrounding
shopping area.
Conclusion:
Although the sign is strictly contrary to policies ENV.12 and QD12 in
terms of its positioning at first floor level in relation to the building and it
is considered acceptable in this instance.
8 EQUALITIES IMPLICATIONS
None identified.
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
No: BH2004/01272/FP Ward: ST. PETER'S & NORTH LAINE
Address: 42 Roundhill Crescent
Proposal: Change of use of existing house to form 3 self-contained flats
and installation of 2 no. velux rooflights on rear roofslope (part
retrospective).
Officer: Trisha Taylor, tel: 291709 Received
Date:
23 April 2004
Con Area: ROUND HILL Expiry Date: 18 June 2004
Agent: N/A
Applicant
:
L Chrzaszcz, Yew Tree House, Spithurst, Barcombe
1 RECOMMENDATION
Grant planning permission, subject to the following conditions:
1. 01.01 Full Planning Permission.
2. 06.03B Cycle parking facilities to be implemented (B).
3. 02.05B Refuse and recycling storage (facilities) B.
4. 13.05B Rooflights – Cons Area (B).
Informatives:
1. This decision is based on drawing nos. 0.4.4.L.C and 04.5 submitted
on 22 April 2004, and the unnumbered drawing depicting Bicycle
and Rubbish Storage submitted on 21 May 2004.
2. This decision to grant Planning Permission has been taken having
regard to the policies and proposals in Brighton Borough Local Plan
and Brighton & Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft set out
below, and to all relevant material considerations, including
Supplementary Planning Guidance on Roof Alterations and
Extensions (SPGBH1):
Brighton Borough Local Plan:
ENV.3 Design in the built environment
ENV.5 Extensions and alterations to houses and commercial
properties
ENV.22 Conservation areas
H.8 Conversion of properties and houses in multiple occupation
H.11 Conversion of properties and houses in multiple occupation
H.12 Conversion of properties and houses in multiple occupation
TR.33 Cycling
TR.34 Cycling
Brighton and Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft:
TR12 Cycle access and parking
TR17 Parking standards
QD1 Design – quality of development and design statements
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
QD2 Design – key principles for neighbourhoods
QD14 Extensions and alterations
QD27 Protection of amenity
HO Provision of private amenity space in residential development
(new policy)
HO9 Residential conversions and the retention of smaller houses
2 THE SITE
The site is located on the south-eastern side of Roundhill Crescent and
contains a two-storey terraced dwelling, with basement area below.
The site is located in the Roundhill Conservation Area, and is subject to
an Article 4 Direction.
3 RELEVANT HISTORY
BH2004/00752/FP: Change of use of existing house to form three self-
contained flats (Retrospective). Installation of 2 no. velux rooflights on
rear roofslope and formation of one bed-sit flat in roof space.
Withdrawn.
4 THE APPLICATION
The applicant seeks approval for the change of use of an existing
house to form 3 self-contained flats and installation of 2 no. velux
rooflights on rear roofslope (part retrospective).
5 CONSULTATIONS
Neighbours: 53, 55 & 40A Roundhill Cres, object on the grounds that
the proposal will generate additional car parking demand, encourage
illegal parking and give rise to additional noise and refuse. In addition,
the site is located within a conservation area where the trend is for
family, single occupancy dwellings, and not multi-occupancy
dwellings. If a front rooflight is needed, this will give rise to a loss of
privacy.
Private Sector Housing: No observations to make under the Housing
Acts.
Traffic: Secure, undercover cycle parking should be provided for each
flat, otherwise no objections on traffic grounds. The applicant has
submitted an additional plan demonstrating the provision of a secure,
undercover cycle park, which can accommodate up to three
bicycles.
6 PLANNING POLICIES
Brighton Borough Local Plan:
ENV.3 - Design in the built environment
ENV.5 - Extensions and alterations to houses and commercial properties
ENV.22 - Conservation areas
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
H.8 - Conversion of properties and houses in multiple occupation
H.11 - Conversion of properties and houses in multiple occupation
H.12 - Conversion of properties and houses in multiple occupation
Brighton and Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft:
TR12 - Cycle access and parking
TR17 - Parking standards
QD1 - Design – quality of development and design statements
QD2 - Design – key principles for neighbourhoods
QD14 - Extensions and alterations
QD27 - Protection of amenity
HO - Provision of private amenity space in residential development
(new policy)
HO9 - Residential conversions and the retention of smaller houses
Supplementary Planning Guidance on Roof Alterations and Extensions
(SPGBH1)
7 CONSIDERATIONS
This application differs from the previous one in that the attic bedsit has
been omitted and the additional bedroom in the roofspace will be
incorporated into the first floor flat.
The applicant has not provided the original floor layout of the building.
The plan provided gives an outline of the current layout without the
use of any rooms indicated. It is estimated that the floor area of the
original dwelling is likely to exceed 115 sq.m and given the size of the
dwelling and rooms, it is likely that there were at least three bedrooms.
As such, some form of residential conversion would be acceptable.
The first and second floor accommodation is combined to provide two
bedroomed, accommodation suitable for family occupation.
The proposal consists of two one-bedroom flats, and one two-
bedroom flat. However, the number of people to be accommodated
within the building might not greatly exceed the number that could be
accommodated if the dwelling was in single occupancy. As such, it is
not considered that the proposal will give rise to any significant
increase in noise or disturbance that would be detrimental to the
amenities of the adjoining properties.
The applicant has submitted an additional plan demonstrating the
provision of space for refuse storage underneath the steps to the
basement flat.
The site is located within an established residential area which
experiences heavy on-street parking demand as dwellings are
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
predominantly terraced and do not have off street parking facilities.
The applicant has demonstrated the provision of adequate secure,
covered cycle parking for the use of residents.
The proposed attic conversion will result in two rear rooflights.
Supplementary Planning Guidance on Roof Alterations and Extensions
(SPGBH1) states that in Conservation Areas, roof lights will not be
accepted on the front or prominent roof slopes of buildings where they
would be visible from the street. The proposed roof lights relate only to
the rear, and will not be visible from the street. They are evenly
spaced and their size does not dominate the rear roof area. As such
the proposed rooflights are considered acceptable.
With regards to the objections raised, the main concern is that the
proposal will generate additional car parking demand in an area
already experiencing chronic parking problems, encouraging
illegal/double parking and preventing emergency vehicles from
gaining access. The application site is not located within a Controlled
Parking Zone so it is not possible to ensure the proposal is car-free.
However, the applicant has demonstrated the provision of adequate
cycle parking and the site is located within close proximity to major
public transport routes.
8 EQUALITIES IMPLICATIONS
Only the ground floor flat would be accessible to a wheelchair user,
provided that the dimensions of hallways, rooms and entrances were
sufficient. The basement and first/second floor flat are only accessible
by stairs.
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
No: BH2004/01258/FP Ward: WITHDEAN
Address: 20 Barn Rise
Proposal: Single storey rear extension.
Officer: Trisha Taylor, tel: 291709 Received
Date:
19 April 2004
Con Area: N/A Expiry Date: 14 June 2004
Agent: Jon Andrews Ltd., Chilcote, Threals Lane, West Chiltington, West
Sussex
Applicant
:
Mr & Mrs D Crew, 20 Barn Rise
1 RECOMMENDATION
Grant planning permission, subject to the following conditions:
1. 01.01 Full Planning Permission.
2. 03.02B Materials to match Non-Cons Area (B).
3. 02.02B No permitted development (windows) B.
Informatives:
1. This decision is based on drawing nos. 477/02 and 03 submitted on
19 April 2004.
2. This decision to grant Planning Permission has been taken having
regard to the policies and proposals in the Brighton Borough Local
Plan and Brighton & Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft set out
below, and to all relevant material considerations, including:
Brighton Borough Local Plan:
ENV.3 Design of the built environment
ENV.5 Extensions and alterations to houses and commercial
properties
ENV.6 Extensions and alterations to houses and commercial
properties
ENV.7 Extensions and alterations to houses and commercial
properties
Brighton and Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft:
QD1 Design – quality of development and design statements
QD14 Extensions and alterations
QD27 Protection of amenity
2 THE SITE
The site is located on the north-eastern side of Barn Rise and contains a
1930’s semi-detached bungalow. The site is elevated above Barn Rise,
overlooking public open space.
3 RELEVANT HISTORY
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
BH2003/01646/FP: Alterations to roof to form gable end, dormer
window to rear roofslope and rooflight to front roofslope. Refused.
Appeal dismissed.
4 THE APPLICATION
The applicant seeks approval for a single storey rear extension. The rear
extension comprises a living room extension adjacent to the existing
kitchen and dining area.
5 CONSULTATIONS
Neighbours: 18 Barn Rise, objects to the proposal on the grounds that
the proposed extension no longer reflects the character, scale and
form of the original property in terns of its overall size. The proposed
extension would be overbearing, detrimental to the amenities of their
property and would result in loss of daylight and outlook.
6 PLANNING POLICIES
Brighton Borough Local Plan:
ENV.3 - Design of the built environment
ENV.5 - Extensions and alterations to houses and commercial
properties
ENV.6 - Extensions and alterations to houses and commercial
properties
ENV.7 - Extensions and alterations to houses and commercial properties
Brighton and Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft:
QD1 - Design – quality of development and design statements
QD14 - Extensions and alterations
QD27 - Protection of amenity
7 CONSIDERATIONS
The proposed extension relates wholly to the south-eastern side of the
dwelling and will not have a detrimental impact upon the amenities
enjoyed by the adjoining property at no. 22 Barn Rise.
The proposed extension will be located adjacent to the common
boundary with 18 Barn Rise. There are no side windows proposed and
the rear window and door openings will face the rear garden, avoiding
any loss of privacy to no. 18. To avoid potential loss of privacy, should
the applicant wish to insert windows within the side elevation facing
no. 18, it is recommended that permitted development rights be
removed.
There is an existing close-boarded fence located on the boundary
between no. 18 and 20. The dwelling at no. 18 is located at a lower
ground level than the application site. As such, the boundary fence
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
already obscures the rear outlook from the ground floor rear windows
at no. 18 and the proposed extension would have not further
detrimental impact.
When viewed from the rear of no. 18, only a small portion of the
extension and roof area will be visible.
The proposed extension has a “dummy” pitched roof and there will be
a rooflight located above the proposed living room. The slope of the
pitch follows that of the main roof. The proposed window and door
openings are considered acceptable. The extension will be
constructed of materials to match existing.
The main concern of the objector is that the proposed extension will be
overbearing, detrimental to the amenities of their property and result in
loss of daylight and outlook. As already mentioned, the proposed
extension will be located at a higher ground level than the existing
ground floor windows at no. 18. The view is already obscured by the
existing boundary fence. The view from their rear dormer will not be
affected. The dwelling at no. 18 is located to the south of the
application site and the proposed extension. As such, daylight and
sunlight will not be significantly affected.
Conclusion:
It is considered that the proposed extension will not have a detrimental
impact upon the amenities enjoyed by adjacent residential properties
and will not have an adverse impact on the appearance of the
dwelling. As such the proposal is recommended for approval, subject
to conditions.
8 EQUALITIES IMPLICATIONS
None identified.
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
No: BH2004/01168/FP Ward: WITHDEAN
Address: 61 Fernwood Rise
Proposal: Conversion of roof space by raising ridge and extension of
pitched roof, with rear ground floor extension (Re-submission of
Refused application BH2003/02030/FP).
Officer: Trisha Taylor, tel: 291709 Received
Date:
24 March 2004
Con Area: N/A Expiry Date: 10 June 2004
Agent: Mr Reeves, 8 Meadow Close, Hove
Applicant
:
Mr Lane, 61 Fernwood Rise
1 RECOMMENDATION
Grant planning permission, subject to the following conditions:
1. 01.01 Full Planning Permission.
2. 03.02B Materials to match Non-Cons Area (B).
Informatives:
1. This decision is based on the unnumbered drawings submitted on
24 March 2004 and 13 April 2004.
2. This decision to grant Planning Permission has been taken having
regard to the policies and proposals in the Brighton Borough Local
Plan and Brighton & Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft set out
below, and to all relevant material considerations, including
Supplementary Planning Guidance on Roof Alterations and
Extensions (SPGBH1):
Brighton Borough Local Plan:
ENV.3 Design in the built environment
ENV.5 Extensions and alterations to houses and commercial
properties
ENV.6 Extensions and alterations to houses and commercial
properties
ENV.7 Extensions and alterations to houses and commercial
properties
Brighton and Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft:
QD1 Design – quality of development and design statements
QD14 Extensions and alterations
QD27 Protection of amenity
2 THE SITE
The site is located on the western side of Fernwood Rise, at the end of
a cul-de-sac. The site contains a single storey detached dwelling with
an existing rear extension. There is a single storey detached garage
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
located at the end of the driveway and adjacent to the common
boundary with 59 Fernwood Rise.
3 RELEVANT HISTORY
BH1997/00260/FP - Rear extensions to lounge and kitchen. Approved.
BH2003/02030/FP - Conversion of roof space with side dormer and
rear gable. Refused.
4 THE APPLICATION
The applicant seeks approval for a conversion of the roof space by
raising the front roof height by approximately 0.5m and a rearward
extension of the existing pitched roof, plus a rear ground floor
extension.
The proposal will provide for a bedroom and w.c in the roof area, and
a rear extension adjacent to the existing lounge and kitchen. A new
internal staircase will be provided adjacent to the ground floor
bathroom.
5 CONSULTATIONS
Neighbours: 44 Windmill Drive, objects to the proposal, stating that an
existing extension at the application site is larger than anticipated,
materials do not exactly match the originals and there does not
appear to be access at the side of the property prohibiting
maintenance of boundary vegetation. They also state that a side
dormer will result in loss of privacy, raising the roof will be detrimental
to the appearance of the dwelling and will affect the skyline.
However, the applicant does not propose a side dormer as part of
this amended application.
6 PLANNING POLICIES
Brighton Borough Local Plan:
ENV.3 - Design in the built environment
ENV.5 - Extensions and alterations to houses and commercial
properties
ENV.6 - Extensions and alterations to houses and commercial
properties
ENV.7 - Extensions and alterations to houses and commercial
properties
Brighton and Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft:
QD1 - Design – quality of development and design statements
QD14 - Extensions and alterations
QD27 - Protection of amenity
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
Supplementary Planning Guidance on Roof Alterations and Extensions
(SPGBH1).
7 CONSIDERATIONS
Impact on appearance of dwelling and street scene.
The proposal will result in raising and extending the main roof of the
dwelling. At the rear, the new roof will be hipped. From the highway
and street frontage, the raising of main ridge will be the most visible
aspect of the proposal. However, although the street contains
dwellings of a uniform appearance, several in the immediate vicinity
of the application site have raised the main ridge in this way. As such,
the proposal would not be out of character with the street scene and
will maintain the overall general appearance of the dwelling at the
front.
The hipped roof at the rear follows the shape, slope and general form
of the existing roof and is considered to be acceptable.
Impact on amenity of adjacent properties
The previous application (BH2003/02030/FP) was refused on the
grounds that “The proposed dormer, by reason of its size, siting and
design, would form an incongruous and obtrusive feature harmful to
the external appearance of the dwelling and surrounding
streetscape”; and “The windows situated within the proposed dormer
would overlook the windows of the adjoining property adversely
affecting the privacy of the property (59 Fernwood Rise).” As such,
the proposal was considered to be contrary to policies contained in
the relevant Local Plans.
The applicant no longer proposes a side dormer, overcoming the
main reasons for refusal of the previous application.
There will be two new rooflights inserted in the roof area, and a new
ground floor window, in the side facing 59 Fernwood Rise. The
dwelling at no. 59 is at a slightly lower ground level, and as such the
new rooflights will overlook the roof of the adjacent dwelling and will
not result in any loss of privacy. The new side window will face the
existing garage and will not result in any loss or privacy or overlooking.
At the rear, there will be a new rooflight and a new ground floor
window. These will overlook the rear garden, which contains
established vegetation along the boundary avoiding overlooking and
loss of privacy to rear adjoining properties.
There will not be any additional windows in the front elevation or the
side facing 63 Fernwood Rise.
PLANS LIST – 9TH JUNE 2004
Due to the orientation of the dwelling at no. 59 and the position of
two existing garages on the common boundary between 59 and 61,
the outlook from rear windows will not be affected. The rear extension
relates wholly to the south-eastern side of the dwelling and will not
affect the outlook from no. 63.
Objections
There has been one objection, and as previously stated the applicant
does not propose a side dormer as part of this amended application.
The property at 44 Windmill Drive is located to the north-west of the
application site, does not directly adjoin the application site, and the
dwelling is located approximately 30m from the dwelling at the
application site. The dwelling at no. 44 is slightly elevated above the
application, allowing views across the application site. It is
considered that the dwelling (and proposed extension) is sufficiently
separated from the property at no. 44 to avoid any detrimental
impact on outlook and amenity.
8 EQUALITIES IMPLICATIONS
None identified.