brighton and hove city council list of major or ...present.brighton-hove.gov.uk/data/planning... ·...

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.





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.




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.




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.




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.




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


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.


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


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


ENV.31 – 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.


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.


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


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


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


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


TR17 - Road Safety


TR - Safe Development (New Policy)


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


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


suggested that any replacement conditions be imposed, as there is

not a robust way of linking them to the condition that is being

removed.


None identified.


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.


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:


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


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.


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


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


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


QD14 – Extensions and alterations

QD27 – Protection of amenity


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


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.


None identified.


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


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


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


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.


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


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


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


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.


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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.


There is to be parking provision for 5 disabled drivers on this site, which

is below the number normally associated with a residential


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.


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:


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


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


- 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


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


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


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


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


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.


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


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


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.


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.


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.


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.




out below and to all relevant material considerations:


ENV1 – General environment policies and objectives




ENV61 – Trees and landscaping

H2 – General housing objectives and policies

H19 – Children/open space provision

TR30 – Pedestrians

TR33A – Cycle parking

TR44 – Car parking standards


TR(new policy) Safe development

TR10 – Helping the independent movement of children


TR17 – Parking standards

QD1 – Design – quality of development and design statements



QD4 – Design – strategic impact

QD15 – Landscape design

QD16 – Trees and hedgerows

QD17 – Protection and integration of nature conservation features


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


“… 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


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.


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


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





H2 – General housing objectives and policies

H19 – Children/open space provision

TR30 – Pedestrians

TR33A – Cycle parking


Brighton and Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft

TR(new policy) Safe development

TR10 – Helping the independent movement of children









QD17 – Protection and integration of nature conservation features




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


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.


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:


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.


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.



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.


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


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


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


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



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


and ENV61 of the Brighton Borough Local Plan and QD15, NC6,


Draft.”

10. 04.02 Landscaping/planting (implementation/maintenance).

Reason: Add “and in accordance with policies S1 and EN2 of the


and ENV61 of the Brighton Borough Local Plan and QD15, NC6,


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.


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:


ENV1 – 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


TR9 – Relationship to development

TR33 – Cycle parking



T29 – Leisure and recreation – formal outdoor facilities

TP14 – Leisure and recreation – formal outdoor facilities





SU2 – Efficiency of development in the use of energy, water and

materials

SU9 – Pollution and nuisance control




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


S1 – Twenty One Criteria for the 21st Century

EN2 – 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


LT11 – 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


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.


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.


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.


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


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,


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


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


(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.


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


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







ENV54 -

ENV55 – Wildlife conservation

ENV58 – Open Space/Natural Habitats


TR9 – Relationship to development



T29 – Leisure and recreation – formal outdoor facilities


TP14 – Leisure and recreation – formal outdoor facilities






materials

SU9 – Pollution and nuisance control




QD26 – Floodlighting


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


S1 – Twenty One Criteria for the 21st Century



EN7 – Urban Fringe Areas

EN9 – Extensive and Noisy Activities in the Countryside

EN14 – Light Pollution





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


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


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


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


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


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.


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.



Address: 5 Wayland Heights

Proposal: Construction of a 5-bedroom 2-storey detached dwelling.

Officer: Andy Watt, tel: 292525 Received

Date:

08 March 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



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).


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


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


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


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.




below, and to all relevant material considerations, including

Supplementary Planning Guidance:


ENV.1 – General objectives and policies


ENV.3 – Design in the built environment

ENV.60 – 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:






materials





QD5 – Design – street frontages





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


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.


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








H.2 – Housing – general policies and objectives

H.19 – Children/open space provision

TR.33 – Cycling







materials





QD5 – Design – street frontages






(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


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


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.


Part M of the Building Regulations will apply.


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


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


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


BE1 - General Development

BE8 - Development in Conservation Areas


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:


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.


None identified.


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.


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


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



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


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


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.






BE1- General guidelines

BE5 – Listed Buildings

BE8 – Development in Conservation Areas

BE18 – Refuse disposal

TR16 – Cycle and motor cycle parking





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


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:


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


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


BE1- General guidelines

BE5 – Listed Buildings

BE8 – Development in Conservation Areas

BE18 – Refuse disposal






HE6 – Development in conservation areas


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.


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


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.


None identified.



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


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.


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,


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


BE1 – General guideline

BE19 – Extensions – materials




QD1 – Design – quality of development

QD2 – Design – quality of development


QD3 – design – full an effective use of sites






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


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.


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.


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.



Address: Goodwood Court, Cromwell Road

Proposal: Part additional storey on Palmeira Place frontage to provide

one four bedroom penthouse flat with roof terrace.


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


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


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.


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



BE8 - Development within Conservation Areas





QD3 - Design – Efficient and Effective use of sites

QD4 - Design – Strategic Impact



HO4 - Dwelling Densities

HO6 - Car free housing


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.


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.


The new unit would be required to conform with Part M of the Buildings

Regulations.



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.


Date:

19 February 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:


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.


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


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.




9. The outdoor play area shall have an appropriate soft play surface

to minimise the generation of noise.




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.




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


maintained.


with policy BE1of the Hove Borough Local Plan and policy QD27


Informatives:

1. This decision is based on drawing nos. 1A submitted on 19 February

2004 and 2E submitted on 7 May 2004.


regard to the policies and proposals in Hove Borough Local Plan

and Brighton & Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft set out




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)




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


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


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


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.


6 PLANNING POLICIES



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)




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


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.


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.



Address: 51 Wilbury Avenue

Proposal: Demolition of existing house and erection of 9 new flats and

associated parking.


Date:

26 March 2004



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


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


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


Informatives:








BE1 – General guidelines

BE18 - Refuse storage

BE41 – Landscaping

TR17 – Road safety



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


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


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:


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


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


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










SU2 - Efficiency of development in use of energy, water and materials

QD1 – Design









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.


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


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.


The flats will be fully accessible for disabled persons. Part M of the

Building Regulations will apply.



Address: 30/31 Station Road

Proposal: Erection of two storey, two bedroom flat above existing shop &

first floor commercial unit.


Date:

08 April 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


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


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.


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;


- 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



S4 - Uses in Primary Shopping Frontages

TR16 - Cycle and motor cycle parking


SU2 - Efficiency of development in the use of energy, water and


materials



QD3 - Design – Efficient and Effective use of sites

QD4 - Design – Strategic Impact



HO - Provision of private amenity space


HO4 - Dwelling Densities


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


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


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.


The unit would be required to conform to Part M of the Building

Regulations.



Address: 37 Vale Road

Proposal: Extension to front of main building in existing car park area.


Date:

27 February 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:


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


4. 03.10 Soundproofing of plant/machinery.

Reason: Standard- plus ‘and to comply with policies EM9 of the



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



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.



Plan and Brighton & Hove Local Plan Second Deposit set out




BE1 General guidelines

TR26 Car parking standards

EM9 Extensions to premises in employment generating uses


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.


- 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


BE1 - General guidelines

TR26 - Car parking standards

EM9 - Extensions to premises in employment generating uses


QD5 - Design – street frontages



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


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.


The proposed building would have level threshold suitable for disabled

access.



Address: 6 Vallensdean Cottages

Proposal: Erection of single terraced house.


Date:

10 March 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.


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:










SU2 - Efficiency of development in use of energy, water and

materials

QD1 – Design










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:


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


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










SU2 - Efficiency of development in use of energy, water and materials

QD1 – Design









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


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.


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.


The new dwelling would have to meet Part M of the Building

Regulations.


No: BH2004/01022/FP Ward: STANFORD

Address: 5 Onslow Road

Proposal: Construction of 2 storey side extension and first floor rear

extension.


Date:

26 March 2004



Applicant

:

Mrs Marks, 5 Onslow Road

1 RECOMMENDATION

Grant planning permission, subject to the following conditions:


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


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.



Plan/Brighton & Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft set out



BE1 General Development


QD1- Development design

QD2 - Neighbourhood design

QD14 - Extensions and alterations


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


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





QD1- Development design

QD2 - Neighbourhood design



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


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.


None identified.


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


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.


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.


BE1 General Guidelines

BE19 Extension Materials


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


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


BE1 - General Guidelines

BE19 - Extension Materials


QD1 - Design: Quality of Design and Design Statements




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


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.


None identified.


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.


Date:

10 March 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,


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:


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.


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


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


BE1– General guidelines

TR16 – Cycle and Motorcycle Parking


SU10 – Noise nuisance




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


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.


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.


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.


None identified.


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:


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


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


- 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


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


ENV1 - General principles

ENV3 - Design and scale of new development

ENV22 - Conservation areas


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


D3 - Disabled parking spaces


TR1 - Development and the demand for travel

TR2 - Public transport accessibility and parking

TR - Safe development


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


QD28 - Planning Obligations

HO2 - Affordable housing


HO4 - Dwelling densities

HO - Provision of private amenity space in residential development


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


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


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


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.


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.


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.


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



4. 22.10 New doors (panelled). Add ‘and to comply with policy



5. 24.01 Windows (to be sash). Add ‘and to comply with policy



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.


Informatives:

1. This decision is based on drawing no. 0317.02b submitted on

15/4/04.



Borough Local Plan & Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft set



ENV.31Listed Buildings


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.


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


ENV.31 - Listed Buildings


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.


None.


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).


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


3. 22.06 Features to match original. Add ’and to comply with policy



4. 22.10 New doors (panelled) . Add ’and to comply with policy



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.




Borough Local Plan and Brighton & Hove Local Plan Second

Deposit Draft set out below, and to all relevant material

considerations.


ENV.1 Ensuring new development does not detract from the

environment

ENV.22 Conservation areas.

ENV.33 Listed buildings


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.


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


ENV.1 - Ensuring new development does not detract from the

environment

ENV.22 - Conservation areas.

ENV.33 - Listed buildings


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.


None.


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


Agent: T. Scoble , 2 Madeira Place

Applicant

:

Mr C. Dubery, 2a Eley Crescent

1 RECOMMENDATION


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


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.






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




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


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


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




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


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.


None identified in relation to this store room.


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


Agent: Jon Andrews Ltd., Chilcote, Threals Lane, West Chiltington, West

Sussex

Applicant

:

Mr L Rowland, 7 Beechwood Close

1 RECOMMENDATION



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.





SPGBH1:


ENV.3 Design in the built environment

ENV.5 Extensions and alterations to houses and commercial

properties


properties


properties


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


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


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







(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


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.


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.


None identified.


No: BH2004/01266/OA Ward: PATCHAM

Address: Rear Garden, Highmead, London Road

Proposal: Outline Application for the erection of a single dwelling.


Date:

14 April 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


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


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].


storey dwelling with rooms in the roof (Plot 2 [between Charmcot and

Guisboro]) – granted 2 February 1998 [but never implemented and

permission lapsed].


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


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


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,


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


ENV.1 – General policies and objectives

ENV.2 – General policies and objectives


H.2 – Maximising the supply and use of housing in the built up area

H.6 and HP.4 – New housing development








QD19 – Greenways


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


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


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.


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.


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


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.


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


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


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.


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.


None identified.


No: BH2004/00959/FP Ward: REGENCY

Address: 70 East Street

Proposal: Installation of new shopfront (Re-submission following refusal of

application BH2003/02262/FP).


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



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.





Draft.

4. The pilasters and fascia shall be painted to match the rest of the

building’s masonry and thereafter be retained.





Draft.

Informatives:


1. This decision is based on drawing no. 227/02/L/A Rev A submitted

on 19 May 2004.









ENV.9 – Shopfronts

ENV.22 – Conservation areas – general policies


QD10 – Shopfronts


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.


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




ENV.9 – Shopfronts

ENV.22 – Conservation areas – general policies


QD10 – Shopfronts


HE6 – Development within or affecting the setting of Conservation

Areas


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.


The premises will be accessible to people with mobility difficulties.


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)


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


Informatives:

1. This decision is based on the location plan and supporting

photographs submitted on 20th April 2004.







ENV.8 - Satellite Antennas

ENV.22 - Conservation Area


Brighton & Hove Local Plan 2nd Deposit Draft:

QD22 – Satellite Antennas


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


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



ENV.8 - Satellite Antennas




QD22 – Satellite Antennas


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


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.


None identified.


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)


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


Borough Local Plan and the Brighton & Hove Local Plan Second

Deposit Draft set out below, and to all relevant material

considerations:


ENV.11 - Advertisements

ENV.12 – Advertisements in Conservation Areas


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


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


ENV.11 - Advertisements

ENV.12 – Advertisements in Conservation Areas


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


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.


None identified.


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).


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



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.


regard to the policies and proposals in Brighton Borough Local Plan

and Brighton & Hove Local Plan Second Deposit Draft set out



Extensions (SPGBH1):




properties

ENV.22 Conservation areas

H.8 Conversion of properties and houses in multiple occupation



TR.33 Cycling

TR.34 Cycling


TR12 Cycle access and parking

TR17 Parking standards



QD2 Design – key principles for neighbourhoods



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




ENV.22 - Conservation areas


H.8 - Conversion of properties and houses in multiple occupation





TR17 - Parking standards


QD2 - Design – key principles for neighbourhoods



HO - Provision of private amenity space in residential development

(new policy)

HO9 - Residential conversions and the retention of smaller houses


(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


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.


(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.


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.



Address: 20 Barn Rise

Proposal: Single storey rear extension.


Date:

19 April 2004


Agent: Jon Andrews Ltd., Chilcote, Threals Lane, West Chiltington, West

Sussex

Applicant

:

Mr & Mrs D Crew, 20 Barn Rise

1 RECOMMENDATION




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.




below, and to all relevant material considerations, including:


ENV.3 Design of the built environment


properties


properties


properties





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


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


ENV.3 - Design of the built environment


properties


properties






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


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.


None identified.



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).


Date:

24 March 2004


Agent: Mr Reeves, 8 Meadow Close, Hove

Applicant

:

Mr Lane, 61 Fernwood Rise

1 RECOMMENDATION




Informatives:

1. This decision is based on the unnumbered drawings submitted on

24 March 2004 and 13 April 2004.






Extensions (SPGBH1):




properties


properties


properties





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


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




properties


properties


properties







(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.


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.


None identified.

brighton and hove city council list of major or ...present.brighton-hove.gov.uk/data/planning... ·...

Documents