Agenda item - BH2017/01445- 9 Clarence Gardens, Brighton- Full Planning

Demolition of existing garage, erection of two storey rear extension and first floor front extension, incorporating revised access and associated works.

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Ward Affected: Regency

              Demolition of existing garage and erection of two storey rear extension and first floor front extension incorporating revised access and associated works.

              Officer Presentation

(1)          The Principal Planning Officer, Jonathan Puplett, introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to photographs, site plans sectional drawings and elevational drawings showing the existing and proposed configuration of the building. It was explained that the main considerations in the determination of this application related to the principle of the proposed extensions to the theatre, the resulting appearance and its impact on the Regency Square Conservation Area, the impact on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers with regard to overlooking and light impact and transport issues.

(2)          The proposed window to the front elevation facing Clarence Gardens would be a high level window which would not enable significant overlooking. Any overlooking would be over the front gardens of 3-8 Clarence Gardens and the footpath leading up to Clarence Square to the north which was a public footpath. No external lighting was proposed and the production room in question would be lit internally and would require low levels of lighting, light spill if any were to occur would therefore be minimal. The proposed two storey rear extension would reduce the gap between the theatre and 5-7 Castle Mews and would reduce (but not significantly) the sun and daylight but as these windows were secondary and did not relate to habitable rooms, it was not considered that they would result in significant harm to the amenity to neighbouring occupiers. It was not considered that rear access to the site would result in any additional harm to neighbouring amenity nor was it considered that it would have significant transport implications. Overall, it was considered that the proposed extensions and alterations would not harm the appearance of the building or wider Regency Conservation Area and approval was therefore recommended.

              Public Speakers

(3)          Ms Dunn spoke on behalf of local residents setting out their objections and concerns in respect of the application. Whilst the theatre had always been a good neighbour in the past and its activities were welcomed by residents there was grave concern that the proposals would result in harm to adjoining residents in terms of overlooking, loss of light and amenity. Light pollution, particularly in the evenings from the illuminated light box at the front of the building was also considered to be an issue.

(4)          Mr Richardson and Mr and Ward spoke on behalf of the applicants in support of their application. The proposed remodelling of the theatre would be on a modest scale and would once completed allow the theatre to increase its seating capacity from 71 to 75. The increased footfall or use of the ground floor bar by customers would not result in significant additional noise of disturbance. No external lighting would be provided. The lightbox would not be sited externally and its use would be limited as it would not be used when the theatre was closed, during performances or during rehearsals.

(5)          Councillor Morris asked the applicants if they would be prepared for the lighting box to be boxed in/enclosed and they confirmed that if required to do so they would.

              Questions for Officers

(6)          Councillor Wealls sought clarification regarding the purpose of the light box, and its precise location and siting within the building.

(7)          In view of the concerns expressed by residents, Councillor Miller enquired whether it would be possible to require the lighting box to be obscurely glazed. It was confirmed that if Members were minded to do so a condition to that effect could be added.

              Debate and Decision Making Process

(8)          Councillor Miller stated that his preference would be to add a condition requiring the light box to be obscurely glazed if that was considered to be reasonable as it would give a measure of reassurance for neighbouring residents. He had no objections to the scheme overall. Councillors Morris and Wealls concurred in that view.

(9)          Councillor C Theobald stated that she considered that the theatre should seek to be a good neighbour.

(10)       Having received clarification regarding the positioning and purpose of the light box Councillor Moonan stated that she was minded that the application be agreed without the need for an additional condition. Councillors Hill and Littman concurred in that view.

(11)       Councillor Miller proposed that an additional condition be included in any planning permission granted requiring the light box at the front of the building to be obscurely glazed. This was seconded by Councillor Wealls. A vote was then taken but this was lost on a vote of 3 to 8. A further substantive vote was then taken on the recommendations as set out in the report and on a vote of 9 with 2 abstentions the 11 Members present voted that planning permission be granted.

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