Agenda item - BH2013/00120 - 38 Medina Villas, Hove - Householder Planning

Alterations to front boundary wall including installation of matching pier to form access to new parking space.

Recommendation - REFUSE

Alterations to front boundary wall including installation of matching pier to form access to new parking space.

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

(2)                   The Area Planning Manager introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to plans and photographs. The application site related to the left side of a sub-divided property; the property also benefited from a garage accessed via an undercroft. The parking space would be for use by number 38, and the proposal would remove a section of wall with the loss of the railings as well. The site was currently the subject of an Article 4 Direction to protect walls, and although the application would create a parking space there would be no overall net gain in parking due to the loss of the residents’ bay to accommodate a drop kerb. A similar application on the same street had been refused by the Planning Authority and this decision had been upheld by the Inspector at appeal on the basis that both the wall and the railings made a positive contribution to the area; it was also noted this eastern side of the street retained a strong character and provided a positive contribution to the area. If the application were granted the applicant would need to fund the relocation of a parking meter in the front of the proposed site. Using photographs it was demonstrated that there was an unbroken view of walls and railings, and although similar arrangements already existed in the street it was felt further alterations would be detrimental to the wider area; the Heritage Team had also been consulted and were of the mind that the character of the area should be protected. The application was recommended for refusal for the reasons set out in the report.

Public Speakers and Questions

(3)                   Mr Tomlins spoke in support of the application in his capacity as the agent. He noted that the appeal decision referred to in the report was in 2010 and the Inspector had observed at the time that the property at no. 35 shared an access with no. 36 and it was considered a separate access was unnecessary; in this case no. 38 had no separate access. It was stated that 19 out of 32 properties had direct access, and the application would also include the relocation of an unsightly parking meter. The applicant was aware of the parking restrictions in the street when he purchased the property; however, he had not anticipated the demand for spaces; the applicant also proposed an electric car charging point. Mr Tomlins asked that the Committee grant the application.

Questions for Officers, Debate and Decision Making Process

(4)                   Following a query from Councillor Cobb the location of the proposed bay was clarified. It was also explained that there had been a lot of work undertaken in this street to restore front boundary walls and railings. Officers felt this loss would be detrimental to the appearance of the conservation area. It was also confirmed, by the Principal Transport Officer, that the bay was above the minimum standard required.

(5)                   It was confirmed for Councillor Carol Theobald that Officers could not confirm where the parking meter would be relocated to; it was also noted that the applicant would need to get a licence to drop the kerb.

(6)                   Councillor Robins asked about the logic behind the current positioning of the parking meter; Officers explained they were unable to comment as these functions were delegated to a  different section in the authority.

(7)                   In was confirmed for Councillor Mac Cafferty that policy sought to preserve where enhancement was not possible; it was accepted that lengths of wall on the western side of Medina Villas had been demolished but it was necessary to preserve what remained. The Deputy Development Control Manager highlighted that the Article 4 Direction sought to remove permitted development rights to bring this kind of change within the control of the Planning Authority.

(8)                   Councillor Hawtree noted that there no waiting list for parking in this area.

(9)                   Councillor Hyde noted the gap would be an improvement on the parking meter, and felt that the needs of the applicant should outweigh the retention of the wall. She would be voting against the Officer recommendation.

(10)               A vote was taken and planning permission was refused on a vote of 7 to 4 with 1 abstention.

168.6      RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation, and the policies and guidance set out in the report and resolves to REFUSE planning permission for the reason set out below:

      i.                   The front boundary wall, railings and garden contribute positively to the character of the street scene and of the Cliftonville Conservation Area. The partial loss of the front wall and railings would further erode the front boundary treatment in this section of the street and would detract from the historic character of Medina Villas. In addition the hardstanding, when in use, would disrupt the front elevation and bay window of the building which would further detract from the character of the area. The proposal would fail to preserve the character or appearance of the Cliftonville Conservation Area, contrary to policies QD14 and HE6 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan and to the provisions of Supplementary Planning Document 09, Architectural Features.