Agenda item - BH2020/00187- 29 Woodbourne Avenue, Brighton - Removal or Variation of Condition

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE

Ward Affected: Patcham

1.    It was noted that an in-depth presentation had been provided by officers in advance of the meeting and was included on the council website detailing the scheme by reference to site plans, elevational drawings and photographs which also showed the proposed scheme in the context of neighbouring development. The main considerations in determining the application related to the impact of the retention of the cladding to the side gable on the host dwelling and wider streetscene.

Speaker

2.    Ward Councillor Wares addressed the committee and stated they supported the application which the officer has recommended for refusal. The area has hundreds of homes with differing architectural designs all of which are very different. In the area there are many designs and many finishes with dormers on front, back and side elevations and many Velux windows. There is also a number of properties with parking in the front garden. The Councillor felt that the application could not be harmful in this very varied area and on balance the committee should grant permission.

Questions for Speaker

3.    Councillor Miller noted from a digital mapping website that the area was very varied with dormers on other properties. Councillor Wares informed the Councillor that in their opinion there were others in the area that were far less sympathetic to the street scene and this application was not out of keeping.

Speaker

4.    Ian Coomber addressed the committee on behalf of the applicant and wanted to underline Councillor Wares comments. Properties in the area are very varied some with cladding. It is understood that cladding would be an issue in a Conservation Area, however, this is property is not in a Conservation Area. Many changes have taken place in the area and careful consideration needs to be taken of the context and character of the area. It was considered that the variety of designs has added to the area. The committee were asked to overturn the Planning officer’s recommendation and approve the application.

5.    Matthew Guest (Planning Team Leader) noted the many styles in the area and felt that many would not get approval under current policies. The general approach now was that materials should match on the property and side gables should relate to the whole property.

Debate

6.    Councillor Miller agreed with Councillor Wares and considered the application to be a minor change and they were against the officer’s recommendation to refuse the application.

7.    Councillor Theobald stated they had visited the site and the additions did not look like a dormer and it was not very visible in this varied area. Councillor Theobald stated they were against the officer’s recommendation.

8.    Councillor Janio stated they wanted policy to be applied evenly and they were against the officer’s recommendation.

9.    Councillor Hill agreed with other Members and felt they had been swayed by the speakers and stated they were against the officer’s recommendation.

10.   The Chair invited the Committee to vote.

11.   On a vote of 9 to 1 the officer’s recommendation was turned down.

12.   The Chair requested a proposer for an alternative recommendation.

13.   Councillor Miller proposed the application be approved on the grounds that the proposal would not harm the appearance of the property and does not relate poorly to the dwelling. Councillor Shanks seconded the proposal.

14.   The Chair invited the committee to a recorded vote.

Councillors Hill, (the Chair), Henry, Theobald, Fishleigh, Janio, Osborne, Miller, Shanks and Yates voted that Planning permission be granted. Councillor Littman voted that planning should not be granted. Therefore, on a vote of 9 to 1 planning permission was granted.

15.   The Senior Solicitor requested that the Planning Manager should agree the wording of the approval. This was agreed by the committee.

16.   RESOLVED: That planning permission be Granted and the final wording of the decision to be agreed by the Planning Manager in consultation with the proposer and the seconder.