Agenda item - BH2016/02201- 4 Harrington Road, Brighton - Full Planning

Creation of vehicle crossover, dropped kerb and hardstanding with associated alterations to front boundary wall.

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE

Ward Affected - Withdean

Creation of vehicle crossover, dropped kerb and hardstanding with associated alterations to front boundary wall.

Officer Presentation

1)               The Principal Planning Officer, Gareth Giles introduced the application and gave a presentation with reference to plans, photographs and elevational drawings. It was explained that the application was a resubmission of a previously refused scheme that had been to appeal and dismissed by the Inspector in August 2015. The site was in the Preston Park Conservation Area and this identified the front walls of the properties as features. There was a similar application for 29 Harrington Road in 2015 and this was granted; however, the property was not symmetrical as a semi-detached and it was a smaller front wall. The application was recommended for refusal for the reasons set out in the report.

Public Speaker(s) and Questions

2)               Councillor K. Norman spoke in his capacity as a Ward Councillor and explained that the road was not symmetrical as the Case Officer had described. There had been no objections received from the transport department, the culture department or local residents. The resident had put their application in and had gathered support from the neighbours. He explained that the part of the garden that would be lost was in bad condition and the wall was in need of repairs; therefore, would be an improvement of what currently in situ. Councillor K. Norman added that there had been a change in the application and it was not identical to the previous application.

Questions for Officers

3)               The Development and Transport Assessment Manager clarified to Councillor Moonan that there would not be a loss of a parking space on the street.

4)               In response to Councillor Hyde the Officer noted that he was unaware of a change from the previous application.

5)               The Development and Transport Assessment Manager explained to Councillor Miller that there were not any highway safety concerns in the area and double yellow lines would not be needed if the application was agreed.

6)               In response to the Chair, the Officer noted that there was not any planning history for the other properties in the area; therefore, they were either completed before the policy was brought in or were unauthorised.

Debate and Decision Making Process

7)               A vote was taken by the 12 Members present and the Officer recommendation that the Committee refuse planning permission was carried with 8 votes in support, 2 against and 2 abstentions.

56.10    RESOLVED – That the Committee resolves to REFUSE planning permission for the reasons set out in section 1 of the report.