Agenda item - BH2020/02454 - Basement Flat, 74 Montpelier Road, Brighton - Listed Building Consent

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE

Ward Affected: Regency

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.

2.    The Members were updated by the Planning Manager that the property was grade II listed building in a conservation area.

Speakers

3.    Joseph Pearson spoke to committee as agent for the application. It was highlighted that the building matched other buildings in the vicinity and the coal shed/store at the front of the building to be removed was not needed. The design of the proposed railings and tiles were of a high standard and the improvements proposed would be in keeping with the rest of the terrace. The proposals would much improve the amount of daylight into the basement flat. A handrail would also benefit the basement flat, which has poor access at the moment. The proposed design of the scheme has been agreed to match the building built in 1840.

Questions for speaker

4.    The Conservation Advisory Group spokesperson noted that they felt the coal shed/store was a wine bin. The agent was not able to confirm this.

5.    Councillor Theobald was informed that the eight other properties have the same as the proposals for the property.

6.    The Planning manager noted that the other properties had not been granted planning permission or listed building consent and therefore no precedent had been set.

7.    It was also noted by the Planning team leader that no.74 was part of 4 identical properties who have retained the coal sheds/cellars, and this added value to retention at the application property.

Debate

8.    Councillor Theobald stated they had visited the site and noted there was very little light to the basement and the steps down were in bad shape. It was considered that the development would be an improvement. The new tiles, stairs and railings would enhance the property. The councillor supported the application.

9.    Councillor Shanks considered that the proposals would allow better light and access to the basement and the coal shed/store was not required at the property as there were no coal fires at the property. The councillor did not consider the development to damage the heritage of the area and supported the application.

10. The Conservation Advisory Group (CAG) spokesperson noted that the application site at no.74 was part of a pair and the neighbour has the same amount of light to the basement and the demolition of the basement store would destroy the pairing. It was noted that no planning permission has been given to other properties. The proposals were also considered to affect the retained vaulting. The railings are considered acceptable in the 1840s style. The proposed safety railing would be good and considered to match the existing handrail. The spokesperson considered the removal of the red paint on the Portland stone steps would be sufficient and York stone will be more acceptable than tiles. The committee were requested to refuse the application.

11. Councillor Miller stated their support for the CAG and heritage officer’s comments and noted that basements are generally darker, and the changes were unnecessary and of no benefit to the property. The councillor supported the officer’s recommendation of refusal.

12. Councillor Yates considered that the proposals were not reasonable in a conservation area and the area needed to be protected.

13. Following the end of the debate the Chair invited the committee to vote: Out of the 8 Members present the vote was 7 to 1 that listed building consent be refused in line with the officer’s recommendation. (Councillor Henry was not in attendance for the discussions or vote).

14. RESOLVED: The proposed front excavation works including demolition of the coal stores would have a detrimental impact upon the historic character and appearance of the grade II listed building and the wider Montpelier and Clifton Hill Conservation Area. No public benefits have been identified sufficient enough to outweigh this harm. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy CP15 of the Brighton and Hove City Plan Part One and policies HE1 and HE6 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan.