Agenda item - BH2014/02984 - 26 Lewes Crescent, Brighton - Householder Planning Consent

Formation of steps with garden store below to rear boundary wall forming gated access from garden to Arundel Place. (Part Retrospective).

RECOMMENDATION - GRANT

Formation of steps with garden store below to rear boundary wall forming gated access from garden to Arundel Place. (Part Retrospective).

1)               The Principal Planning Officer, Guy Everest, gave a presentation in respect of application BH2014/02984 for householder planning permission and application BH2014/02985 for listed building consent with reference to plans, photographs and elevational drawings; there was an also an additional condition in relation of the application for householder planning in respect of the timeframe to complete the works. The application sought permission for changes to the rear boundary wall; the rear garden was lower than the street level and the scheme included a new staircase and storage below. Amendments had taken place following consultation with the Heritage Team and these included the flattening of the door arches and the additional black railing. Consent was also sought for black and white tiling on the front entrance steps which would match that of the neighbouring property, 27 Lewes Crescent. Both applications were recommended for approval for the reasons set out in the report.

Public Speaker(s) and Questions

2)               Mr Derek De Young spoke in objection to the scheme; he stated that the Kemptown Society strongly objected to the scheme on a heritage basis. He noted that the property was one of the few in area that remained a single residence. There had been a temporary opening in the wall during works to the building, but the wall was original and fell within the curtilage of the Grade I listing; the works had also been carried out without permission. Attention was drawn to a previous decision by the Planning Inspectorate, and the Committee were asked to refuse the application.

3)               Councillor Hyde asked for further information in relation to the decision of the Planning Inspectorate that Mr De Young had made reference to, and he confirmed that the application was quite different from this, but had related to the treatment of Grade I listed property.

4)               Mr James Breckell spoke in support of the application in his capacity as the architect for the scheme. He stated that the application had been considered by the CAG in October 2014 where the flatter door arches had been suggested – the scheme before the Committee was the result of the advice of the CAG and consultation with the Heritage Team. Mr Breckell stated he had worked on a similar scheme for the neighbouring building, and argued this gave some precedent for approval. There had already been planning permission for a temporary opening, and this had led to the discovery of evidence of a previous opening in the wall – all this evidence suggested that a rear gate was acceptable. It was also noted that there was no objection to the addition of the new tiles at the front of the property.

5)               In response to Councillor Hyde the architect confirmed that the Heritage Team had no objection to the scheme that was before the Committee.

6)               In response to Councillor Gilbey the architect confirmed they had found evidence of a previous opening in the rear wall; this may have been a gate, but had at some point been blocked up.

7)               The architect confirmed for Councillor C. Theobald that the black railings had been suggested by the Heritage Team.

Debate and Decision Making Process

8)               Councillor Davey stated he had confidence with the view of the Heritage Team, and would support the Officer recommendations.

9)               Mr Gowans stated that the CAG had originally recommended refusal of the unamended scheme and in relation to interference with the original wall. He noted that CAG had asked for the amendments that were before the Committee, and the design was more in-keeping. In response to the Chair it was confirmed by Mr Gowans that the CAG were now more comfortable with the amended scheme.

10)            Councillor C. Theobald stated that she agreed with the principle of the door in the wall, but she preferred the unamended white wall of the stairwell.

11)            A vote was taken in respect of the application for householder planning consent by the 12 Members present at the Committee, and the Officer recommendation that the application be granted was approved with 11 in support and 1 against.

139.7    RESOLVED –That the Committee has taken into consideration the recommendation and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in section 11 and resolves to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives set out in section 11 , and the additional condition set out below:

              Additional Condition

The works hereby permitted shall be completed in accordance with the approved drawings within 3 months from the date of this consent.

Reason: To ensure the satisfactory preservation of this listed building and to comply with policy HE1 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.