Agenda item - BH2013/02139 - 3 Royal Crescent, Brighton - Full Planning Permission

Demolition of existing garage/store in rear garden and erection of garden room.

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Demolition of existing garage/store in rear garden and erection of garden room.

(1)                   The Area Planning Manager, Nicola Hurley, introduced this application and gave a presentation in relation to application BH2013/02139 for full planning permission and application BH2013/02140 for listed building consent by reference to plans, photographs and elevational drawings. The property was located on the northern side of Marine Parade, and the parent building was a four storey Regency style property which was Grade II listed and located in the East Cliff Conservation Area. Permission was sought for the demolition of the existing garage to the rear and the erection of a garden room. Attention was drawn to matters on the Late List, and the main considerations related to the impact on the listed building and the wider impact on the Conservation Area, and the impact on neighbour amenity. The application sought a new garden room to replace the garage which would be of modern design apart from where it faced out onto the mews; with this approach the character of the Conservation Area was considered to be preserved. Whilst the garden room would have a greater mass and bulk the impact on amenity was considered acceptable. For the reasons set out in both reports the applications were recommended for approval.

Public Speakers and Questions

(2)                   Mr Shuttleworth spoke in objection to the application in his capacity as a local resident; he stated he was representing the views of householders on Royal Mews. The report described the existing building as a garage or store, and residents were of the view that it was not in use as a garage. It was also felt that if the proposed new building were to be used as a garden room then it would not need the wide doors proposed onto the mews; there was also concern that the proposal would destroy the traditional wall and the mature planting along it. It was also explained that there was parking for cars in Royal Mews for the six properties, and these proposals would further impact on the parking restrictions there. The report also stated that the loss of the attractive flint wall would be disappointing, and the removal of the planting would have a detrimental impact on the view from Royal Mews. In closing Mr Shuttleworth asked that the application be deferred to although for a compromise position to be agreed by all parties.

(3)                   In response to a query from Councillor Ken Norman it was explained by Mr Shuttleworth that the planting referred to made a positive contribution to the visual amenity of the Mews – if the doors were kept as they were currently then the planting could be retained. It was also confirmed that the vegetation was in the Mews rather than in the garden of no. 3.

(4)                   Mr Cronshaw spoke in support of the application in his capacity as agent for the applicant. He stated that the planning history identified the building as a garage, and drew attention to the mismatch nature of the rear of the properties on Royal Crescent. The planting that had been referred to was out of control, and the roof of the existing garage was in too poor of state to allow the vegetation to be properly pruned. The wall was also in a poor state of repair and had large areas of concrete to repair it; instead the proposals sought to improve the wall. It was also explained that the applicant wanted to use the proposal as a garden room only, and they owned the whole building and had no need for additional parking in the garage. Lastly it was stated that the impact of the glazed roof lantern would be minimal and the garden room would be some distance from the main house.

(5)                   Councillor Carol Theobald asked if the garden room could be built without the need to change the existing wall; in response Mr Cronshaw explained that the room sought to take advantage of the southern aspect and needed to be up against the northern boundary. The intention had been to improve the rear of the garden and close work had been undertaken with the Conservation Officer to achieve this.

Questions for Officers and Decision Making Process

(6)                   Councillor Cox asked about possible conditions that could be added to protect the use as a garden room, and in response the Deputy Development Control Manager explained that the permission would allow the garden room to be used for purposes ancillary to the parent building.

(7)                   It was confirmed for Councillor Ken Norman that the use would be ancillary, and could include an office or bedroom.

(8)                   It was confirmed for Councillor Gilbey that the matter had to be determined by the Committee as eight letters of objections had been received.

(9)                   A vote was taken and planning permission was granted on a vote of 8 to 1 with 1 abstention.

68.11    RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in paragraph 11 and resolves to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report.

              Note: Councillors Littman and Wakefield were not present at the meeting.