Agenda item - BH2017/01352, 6 Olde Place Mews, The Green, Rottingdean, Brighton- Full Planning

Erection of ground floor side extension with associated alterations to include a new front entrance. Loft conversion with 2no. conservation rooflights to rear elevation.

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Ward Affected: Rottingdean Coastal

              Erection of ground floor side extension with associated alterations to include a new front entrance. Loft conversion with 2no. conservation roof lights to rear elevation.

              Officer Presentation

(1)          The Principal Planning Officer, Jonathan Puplett, introduced the report and gave a presentation by reference to site plans, photographs and elevational drawings. The application site related to a two storey terraced property, located to the southern side of Olde Place Mews, and was located within the Rottingdean Conservation Area. The proposed alteration to the front entrance, resulting in the loss of one parking space, to be converted into habitable accommodation was considered acceptable in this instance.

(2)          The proposed extensions were considered suitable additions to the building which would not harm its appearance or that of the Rottingdean Conservation Area, in accordance with policies HE6 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan, CP15 of the Brighton & Hove City Plan Part One and Supplementary Planning Document 12 'Design Guide for Extensions and Alterations.' The impact on the adjacent properties at 2, 5, 6 Olde Place Mews, The Green and 89 High Street had been fully considered in terms of daylight, sunlight, outlook, disturbance and privacy and no significant harm had been identified; therefore approval was recommended.

              Public Speaker(s) and Questions

(3)          Ms Lidington and Mr Flanagan spoke setting out their objections to the proposals. They refuted the information set out in the Officer report as they were in receipt of records and a letter from Sanne Roberts of the Conservation Team indicating that the property was listed. Previous permissions indicated that no further development would be permitted on site and additionally there were concerns that reduction of the width of the parking space would give rise to significant safety issues in this already relatively narrow mews which was in constant use and was also used by a number of children and their parents in order to access the local school. The proposals did not respect the buildings status as a listed building and ran contrary to planning policy, namely SPD 12. A number of properties looked out onto this mews and would be negatively impacted.

(4)          Mr Vaughan-Philips spoke on behalf of the applicant in support of their application. It was explained that the applicant owned the application site and parking space adjacent to it as well as the neighbouring property and space. The proposals were modest and in keeping with and respected Olde Place Mews. The applicant had been advised that the building was of no special interest and that on that basis Listed Building Consent was not required.

(5)          Councillor Hyde asked the objectors to clarify the nature of their concerns relating to road safety as she was surprised by the assertion that Olde Place Mews was in daily use to access the nearby school. Councillor Hyde was very familiar with that part of Rottingdean using it every day and had never observed it being heavily used by pedestrians, she was also aware that the main entrance to the school had been remodelled and that pupils and others were actively encouraged to use that.

              Questions for Officers

(6)          Councillor Inkpin-Leissner referred to the reference to the building being listed enquiring what the possible implications could be in terms of works which could be permitted.

(7)          Councillor Mac Cafferty sought clarification regarding the statement which had been made that no works were permitted at the application site. The Legal Adviser to the Committee, Hilary Woodward, stated that removal of permitted development did not constitute a blanket ban on works being undertaken but would prevent them being carried out in the absence of planning permission.

(8)          Councillor Cattell, the Chair stated that that in her view the issue of whether the building was listed needed to be resolved. Whether or not the building was listed and whether it was deemed to be of special architectural interest could be relevant considerations.

(9)          Councillor Hyde formerly proposed that in her view a number of issues required clarification and advice from officers regarding whether the application site was listed and if so the implications, if any, in respect of the current application. This was seconded by the Chair, Councillor Cattell, and the 10 Members present voted unanimously that determination of the application be deferred pro tem

(10)       The Legal Adviser to the Committee, Hilary Woodward, advised that if it was established that the building on site was listed, the current application would need to be re-assessed in the light of that information and the officer report amended to reflect the additional listed building policies which would need to be taken account of. Ultimately, whilst that would not necessarily effect the officer recommendation, exceptionally, and in fairness to all parties she considered that it would be appropriate to permit all parties to speak further.

20.6       RESOLVED - That consideration of the above application be deferred in order for a site visit to take place and to establish whether the application site was listed and if so the status of that listing. Exceptionally, the public speakers would have another opportunity for public speaking if the report had to be re-written to take into account Listed Building status.

              Note : Councillor Miller returned to the meeting part way through discussions in respect of the above application and therefore took no part either its discussion nor in the decision that consideration of the application be deferred.