Agenda item - BH2014/01031, Marlborough House, 54 Old Steine, Brighton - Full Planning

Change of use from offices (B1) to single dwelling house (C3) with associated alterations including infill of some rear windows, replacement of rooflights and insertion of rear dormer.

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Ward Affected:Regency

Change of use from offices (B1) to single dwelling house (C3) with associated alterations including infill of some rear windows, replacement of rooflights and insertion of rear dormer

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

(2)          The Principal Planning Officer, Jonathan Puplett introduced this application and the separate but linked Listed Building Consent (application C), which also included internal alterations and gave a presentation covering both by reference to photographs, plans and elevational drawings. It was explained that the application site was a Grade I Listed Building on the western side of the Old Steine, within the Valley Gardens Conservation Area. It was described in the Pevsner Guide to Brighton and Hove as “the finest late c18 house, or rather villa, in Brighton” and was one of the most architecturally and historically significant buildings in the city and had been built c1765 and its present appearance followed its sale in 1786 to William Hamilton MP, who commissioned its enlargement and remodelling in Neo-classical style by Robert Adam. Although originally built as a dwelling the building had last been used as offices but it had been vacant for at least 7-10 years and had been used more recently by squatters. In consequence, due to its current state of relative neglect the building had been placed on the English Heritage (now Historic England) “at risk register” in 2014. It had been described as in fair condition and as vacant/not in use.

(3)          The main considerations in determining the application related to the principle of development; the visual impact of the proposed changes on the Listed Building and the wider Conservation area; impact on amenity; sustainable transport; and sustainable building design.

(4)          The proposed change of use was considered to be acceptable in principle and the internal and external alterations to the building would have a positive impact on the historic significance and appearance of the Listed Building or the wider character of the Valley Gardens Conservation Area. The building had been vacant for a long period of time and bringing the building back into use would help to preserve the building as well as removing it from the Buildings at Risk Register. No harmful impact on neighbour amenity or transport was foreseen and the development aimed to be sustainable in the use of energy, water and materials. Approval was therefore recommended.

              Questions for Officers

(5)          Mr Gowans, in attendance on behalf of CAG referred to the comments made by the CAG as part of the consultation process asking that as both applications were recommended for approval that conditions be imposed to seek to ensure that the Adam fireplaces be reproduced and reinstated using sections of the originals stored in the basement of the building and removal of the rear roof extension.

(6)          Councillor Morris expressed his disappointment that no one was in attendance representing the applicants in order to answer questions in relation to the scheme. The Planning and Building Applications Manager, Jeanette Walsh explained that applicants were not generally afforded the opportunity to address the Committee when applications were recommended for approval. A number of conditions were proposed to ensure that the requirements of the existing enforcement notice were undertaken in concert with returning the building to use. He queried whether it would be appropriate to defer determination of the applications pending a full survey of the interior of the building.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(7)          Councillor C Theobald stated that she was concerned that insufficient detail had been provided regarding features currently in situ in the building, it would have been helpful if the applicants had been available to provide more information about the proposals. It was not clear to her what it was intended would be retained and what would be removed. The Principal Planning Officer, Major Projects, Heritage and Design explained that detailed drawings had been received and that it was on the basis of those and the detailed conditions to be met that both applications were recommended for approval.

(8)          Councillor Mac Cafferty referred to the detailed comments received from CAG stating that whilst he supported the application in his view it was important to ensure, given the age and importance of the building that a detailed photographic record of its interior should be made prior to commencement of the works.

(9)          Councillor Morris also re-iterated his concern that it was very important to ensure that a proper record of the interior of the building particularly of the Adam Fireplaces which should be retained in situ. It was important to ensure that a detailed inventory/archive was made.

(10)       Councillor Wares agreed that whilst welcoming proposals which would ensure that the building was returned to use, it was important to ensure that existing features of historic interest were recorded, respected and retained.

(11)       Councillor Hamilton stated that he considered the proposed scheme was acceptable as it would result in the building being returned to use.

(12)       Councillor Inkpin-Leissner agreed considering that the proposals were timely in view of the length of time that the building had been empty.

(13)       Councillor Barradell stated that she welcomed the proposals which would return the building to use as a dwelling house, the purpose for which it had been built originally and which was likely to have less impact than an office use.

(14)       Councillor Miller considered that it would be inappropriate to defer consideration of the applications provided that a suitable condition could be added to ensure that a photographic record of the existing interior and its features was made, welcoming the scheme overall.

(15)       A vote was taken and on a vote of 11 with 1 abstention planning permission was granted.

33.2       RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in section 11 of the report and the policies and guidance in section 7 and resolves to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives set out in section 11.

              Note: Councillor C Theobald abstained from voting in respect of the above application.