Agenda item - BH2022/01500 - St Margaret's Church, The Green, Rottingdean, Brighton - Full Planning

1.         The Case Officer introduced the application to the committee.

Speakers

2.         Erica Partridge addressed the committee as an objecting resident and stated that they had carried out forensic work on the application and were concerned that the committee had not visited the site which is grade II* listed and therefore very important. Living opposite the church the extension seemed unnecessary as the proposals would cause harm to the north wall and the Edward Burne-Jones window. The new windows are considered ugly and not in keeping with the building and area. The proposals look like a supermarket or public toilets. The extension will cause harm to the existing windows. The planning committee should decide; however, the extension is not needed.

3.         Reverend Anthony Moore addressed the committee as the applicant and stated that they had been vicar at the church for 7 years and noted that the church was a registered charity with trustees, who manage the resources and finances. There is a need to protect the building and the English Heritage officers have been working with the church, allowing the church to flourish whilst serving the wider community. As Easter Sunday proved additional space is needed for wheelchair users, parents with babies and others. The church has been in contact with user groups, looking at ways to utilise the church, reduce running costs and maximise income. The ecological impact of the development is appreciated, and measures have been taken to mitigate any harm to the environment. The pastoral sensitivity is noted, and the works are considered respectful.

4.         Jim Gowans of the Conservation Advisory Group addressed the committee and asked if any existing views of the north elevation had been shown to the committee. It was confirmed that 3D visuals had been shown and existing elevations.

Answers to committee Member Questions

5.         Councillor Earthey was informed that the north elevation was chosen as the best option for the scheme following extensive pre-application advice. It was noted that the Burne-Jones window would be protected by condition and the Saxon doorway would be reopened as a fire exit. The Saxon walls would remain undamaged, and an archaeologist would be on site during the works.

6.         Councillor Nann was informed by the applicant that the congregation had been consulted in a survey in 2019. It was noted that the survey results showed that the congregation considered the facilities inadequate, space was needed with separate heating and lighting.

7.         Councillor Miller was informed that the church holds 200 people comfortably. It was noted that the church needed to be more accessible.

8.         Councillor Theobald was informed that all options had been explored with regard to location, and the northern elevation was considered to minimise the impact and therefore the best location. A single storey extension was not considered to be in keeping. A two-storey extension was considered to be more acceptable against the existing building.

9.         Councillor Cattell was informed by the objecting resident that the scheme would be 60m from the neighbours in Tudor Close and in a prominent view and officers clarified that at the nearest point the development would be 25-30m from Tudor Close although where the objector lived within Tudor Close was unknown.

10.      Councillor Miller was informed that the Burne-Jones window is high up in the elevation and part of the first-floor extension would include a rooflight to still provide natural light the window.

11.      Councillor Winder was informed that the stained-glass windows would be protected during the works by condition.

12.      Councillor Loughran was informed that the Tudor Close properties were sufficiently away from the proposed works which were considered to have no overbearing impact.

Debate

13.      Councillor Shanks considered the proposals to be in keeping and they noted the Burne-Jones window as an asset to the building.

14.      Councillor Cattell considered the churches need to move forward and disability access was very important. The councillor supported the application.

15.      Councillor Nann noted the changes were supported by the congregation and they supported the application.

16.      Councillor Robinson noted the applicant had done a lot of work and the church needed to move forwards. The councillor supported the application.

17.      Councillor Miller considered the church needed to be good for the community. The councillor supported the application.

18.      Councillor Winder considered the application was good for the community and supported the application.

19.      Jim Gowans of the Conservation Advisory Group reminded the committee to weigh the impact on the north elevation of the listed building against the public benefits.

20.      Councillor Theobald considered the materials to fit the existing building, the proposals to provide good facilities and it would be difficult not to grant planning permission. The councillor supported the application.

21.      Councillor Earthey considered the building was protected by conditions and supported the application.

22.      Councillor Loughran considered the church to be spectacular following a site visit. The extension was in the right place to minimise the harm. The church needs to survive. The congregation is large and there are many visitors to the church and commonwealth graves in the graveyard. The councillor considered the heritage test had been met.

Vote

23.      A vote was taken, and the committee unanimously agreed the officer recommendations.

24.      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 in the report.