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

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.

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Ward Affected: Rottingdean Coastal

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

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

              Officer Presentation

(2)          The Principal Planning Officer, Jonathan Puplett, introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to plans, photographs and elevational drawings. It was noted that additional letters of information had been circulated by the applicant in support of their application. It was also noted that consideration of the application had been deferred at the previous meeting of the Committee in order to confirm the buildings status as a Listed Building and clarification in respect of this was set out in the report. It was considered that the range of which the application property formed part was not of special interest and it was therefore the opinion of the Local Planning Authority that it did not require Listed building Consent and that the works proposed under the current application would not affect the character of the listed building as a building of special architectural or historic interest. It was acknowledged that the building in question was Grade II Listed and whilst it had been confirmed that the range of which the application property formed a part was of no special interest, the listed status of the building had been taken into account. Determination of this planning application was not prejudiced by the consideration of whether Listed Building consent was required or not.

(3)          Having fully considered all relevant factors it was considered that the proposed development would have an acceptable impact on the listed building and would result in an acceptable appearance. No significant harm to neighbouring amenity would result, and the development was considered acceptable in transport and highway terms. Approval was therefore recommended.

              Public Speakers

(4)          It was noted that Ms Lidington who had spoken on the last occasion that this application had been considered was unable to be present. In her absence, the Democratic Services Officer, Penny Jennings, read out a statement on her behalf detailing her concerns regarding status of and loss/encroachment on the existing parking space, loss of amenity and concerns regarding reduction in pedestrian safety.

(5)          Mr Flanagan also spoke as a neighbouring objector. In his view it remained unclear why listed building consent was not required for the works. The impact and significance of conditions applied to the original permission for conversion of the building in terms of permitted development rights had not been respected and still required clarification and would result in overlooking, loss of amenity and did not respect the listed building.

(6)          Mr Vaughan-Phillips, the applicant spoke in support of his application. He explained that he had sought to address concerns raised regarding the application and was seeking to provide a better configured living space for his family whilst respecting the listed building in which he lived.

              Questions for Officers

(7)          Councillor Wealls sought confirmation regarding the width of the remaining car parking space and the Development and Transport Assessment Manager, Steven Shaw confirmed that it would be sufficient for an average sized family car and was considered to be acceptable. Councillor Wealls also sought clarification regarding the proposed inclusion of roof lights.

(8)          Councillor Miller sought clarification regarding the rationale for deciding whether or not a building was listed and the significance of listing whether that decision was made by officers and whether that was subjective. The Legal Adviser to the Committee, Hilary Woodward explained that the application needed to be considered on planning grounds and that was not prejudiced by considerations in respect of the building’s status as a listed building. It had been confirmed that the building was listed with the range of which it formed a part was not considered to be of special interest and the relevance of that. The Principal Planning Officer, Policy Projects and Heritage, Tim Jefferies clarified the assessment which had been undertaken by the Heritage Team.

(9)          In answer to further questions by Councillor Miller it was explained that theassessment made by Historic England had not been revisited and did not run contrary to that made by the Local Planning Authority.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(10)       Councillor Littman sought clarification of the potential impact of the roof lights in the context of land to the rear of the former Rottingdean Club and Old Place Hotel Whilst he considered there were positive elements to the scheme he was concerned that the additional of roof lights to the rear would impact negatively on the existing unbroken roof line.

(11)       Having sought clarification of the level of external and internal works and details appertaining to positioning of the proposed roof lights, Councillor Morris stated that he considered the application to be acceptable. There were a number of listed buildings across the city where roof lights had been fitted and he considered that they were also appropriate in this instance.

(12)       Councillor Moonan concurred that on balance she considered the application to be acceptable.

(13)       Notwithstanding the clarification given, Councillor Miller stated that he had some concerns regarding the listed status of the building. The Chair reiterated that planning permission and listed building applications were different, the Committee was being asked to determine the planning application, and it was possible to have one in the absence of the other.

(14)       Councillor C Theobald stated that having visited the site she considered overall that the application was acceptable.

(15)       A vote was taken and on a vote of 7 to 4, the 11 Members present voted that planning permission be granted.

33.7       RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report and resolves to GRANT planning permission subject to the Conditions and Informatives also set out in the report.