Agenda item - BH2013/01447 - Essex Place, Montague Street, Brighton - Full Planning Permission

Removal of brick balconies and enclosure with UPVC double glazed windows.  Replacement of existing windows with UPVC double glazed windows to North and East elevations.  Installation of insulated render cladding, new rising gas mains pipe work and associated external alterations.

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Removal of brick balconies and enclosure with UPVC double glazed windows.  Replacement of existing windows with UPVC double glazed windows to North and East elevations. Installation of insulated render cladding, new rising gas mains pipe work and associated external alterations.

(1)                   The Area Planning Manager introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to plans, photographs and elevational drawings. The application related to a 16 storey tower block, and 5 letters of objection had been received from leaseholders of flats. It was considered that the proposed changes would not harm the appearance or character of the building, but would lead to the loss of the small area of amenity space by enclosing it. This loss was considered acceptable, and an additional condition had been included to ensure all changes were implemented to keep the building appearance uniform. For the reasons set out in the report the application was recommended for approval.

Questions for Officers

(2)                   Councillor Carol Theobald asked if the residents had been surveyed for their views on the proposals, and in response Officers explained that this was not material planning consideration; however, from a Planning perspective it was important to achieve uniformity, and this was sought by condition.

(3)                   It was confirmed for Councillor Cox that the application had been submitted to the Council a second time as the freeholder had failed to serve notice on all of the leaseholders when making the previous application.

(4)                   Councillor Littman asked why the loss of amenity was considered acceptable, and in response Officers explained that it was because the spaces were very small and had limited use.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(5)                   Councillor Hyde noted that she had reservations about the loss of the small amenity space, and as such she would not support the Officer recommendation.

(6)                   Councillor Randall noted that the proposed changes to the balconies were not clear on the plans.

(7)                   Councillor Shanks noted it would be unfortunate for residents to lose a small area of outside space. Councillor Wells echoed these comments and noted that he would not support the Officer recommendation.

(8)                   Councillor Hyde noted that it was unlikely a new build property would be granted permission without private amenity space.

(9)                   The Head of Development Control explained that there was refurbishment work being undertaken on all blocks of flats in the ownership of the Council, and as the amenity space was very small, the Case Officer had not felt it could be refused on these grounds.

(10)               Councillor Mac Cafferty suggested that the item be deferred to allow a site visit to take place, and for further clarification to be sought on the proposed arrangements for changing the balconies

31.7       RESOLVED – That the item be deferred to allow a site visit to take place, and for further clarification to be sought on the proposed arrangements for changing the balconies.