Agenda item - BH2016/00216 - Hazel Cottage, Warren Road, Brighton - Full Planning Permission

Creation of enclosed entrance lobby and alterations to fenestration.

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Creation of enclosed entrance lobby and alterations to fenestration.

Officer Introduction

1)               The Planning Manager – Major Planning Applications introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to plans, photographs and elevational drawings. The alterations to the property were mainly for the front of the building, these were: constructing a porch; reordering the existing fenestration in the centre of the building; installation of new windows and changing one of the windows on the side of the building. The building had a wheelchair ramp access in and out of the building which would remain. The Officers considered that it was a sympathetic change to the property and the application was recommended for approval.

Public Speaker(s) and Questions

2)               Councillor Simson spoke in objection to the application in her capacity as a Ward Councillor. She highlighted that other than the Downs Hotel, the cottages are the only other historic buildings in Woodingdean. It was explained that the cottages were not listed because they had been in public ownership and the residents believed that they would therefore be protected in their original state. The cottages fitted the criteria for being listed or of being awarded local protection through the Local List. The scheme proposed significant changes the fenestration that would have a detrimental impact on the street scene and lose the uniformity of the four properties. Councillor Simson asked that the Committee refuse the application.

3)               Councillor Simson clarified to Councillor Barradell that some of the cottages had their original wooden window frames; however, some have been changed to PVC.

Questions for Officers

4)               In response to Councillor Mac Cafferty the Planning Manager – Major Planning Applications clarified that the cottages were not on the local list and highlighted that the local list had been reviewed recently.

5)               In response to Councillor C. Theobald, it was explained that there would not be a change to the disabled access ramp.

6)               The Planning Manager – Applications Team clarified to Councillor Inkpin-Leissner that the statutory consultation process had been followed and the neighbouring properties had been properly consulted.

Debate and Decision Making Process

7)               Councillor Hyde explained that she recognised the concerns raised in Councillor Simson’s objections to the application, and why local residents had concerns in relation to the change of the building. She believed the residents had not had enough time in the consultation period to put in formal objections. She went on to state that she agreed with Councillor Simson and added that she would not be supporting the Officer recommendation.

8)               Councillor Miller agreed with Councillor Hyde and added that a porch would ruin the symmetry of the cottages. He didn’t feel there was a huge benefit from the changes and therefore would not be supporting the Officer recommendation.

9)               Councillor Inkpin-Leissner requested that the application be deferred until the next Planning Committee to give local residents a chance to be formally consulted. The Planning Manager – Applications Team explained that the statutory consultation had been complied with and they should not set a precedent for future applications. Councillor Inkpin-Leissner stated that he would not be supporting the Officer recommendation.

10)            Councillor Morris noted that it was a shame the cottages were not on local list. He agreed with Councillor Miller and thought it would spoil the appearance of the cottages and would not be supporting the Officer recommendation.

11)            Councillor Barradell stated that the buildings had character and thought it was a shame that new PVC windows had been installed on the cottages. She believed that the cottages should retain with the uniform appearance, as such she would not support the Officer recommendation.

12)            Councillor Littman stated that the cottages were all slightly different and did not believe the addition of a porch would make a difference to the appearance; therefore he would be voting with the Officer recommendation.

13)            A vote was taken by the Committee on the Officer recommendation that permission be granted and this was not carried on a vote of 4 in support with 8 against. Councillor Hyde proposed reasons for refusal and these were seconded by Councillor Morris, a short adjournment was then held to allow the Chair, Councillor Hyde, Councillor Morris; the Planning Manager – Applications and the Senior Solicitor to draft the reasons in full. These were then read to the Committee and it was agreed that they reflected those that had been put forward. A recorded vote was then held and Councillors: Gilbey, C. Theobald, Barradell, Bennett, Hyde, Inkpin-Leissner, Miller and Morris voted that permission be refused; Councillors: Cattell, Mac Cafferty, Littman and Moonan voted that permission not be refused.

14)            RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration the Officer recommendation, but resolves to REFUSE planning permission for the reason set out below:

Reason 1

The proposed development would fail to respect the detailing and character of the existing building and the immediate neighbouring buildings. The proposal therefore represents an inappropriate development contrary to policy QD14 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan 2005.