Agenda item - BH2023/03417 - 132 Kings Road, Brighton - Full Planning

1.      The Planning Manager introduced the application to the committee.

Speakers

2.      Eleni Shiarlis addressed the committee as a resident and stated that they were part of the family run restaurant, with a loyal customer base, underneath the application site. The development is considered out of keeping with the existing building, with no consideration of the asset, as the scheme is visually jarring. It is considered that the plans are contrary to National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the city plan policies and will have a harmful impact. The four mechanical vents would need to be moved as they would be too close to the development. The proposed lift shaft is an issue. The resident stated they would not agree to any part wall agreements.

3.      Ward Councillor Thomson noted the application was not new for this property. The development was against the NPPF and although not listed was adjoining a grade II listed building. The heritage building neighbouring the site overlooks the property. The development is not in keeping with existing building. It is considered that the neighbouring windows will be obscured by the development. There are concerns that the ‘bungaroosh’ walls will not be able to support the structure. The committee were requested to reject the application.

4.      Michael Wilson addressed the committee as the agent acting on behalf of the applicant and stated that the project was restoration and maintenance with a regency frontage. The rear of the property is in poor condition, and the proposed accommodation would cover the cost of maintaining the building. The development has a simple light weight design with a new parapet wall obscuring the structure from the street. The frame will be timber with glass windows. The existing walls will support the structure and would not overload them. The application has pre-application approval from Planning officers.

Answers to Committee Member Questions

5.      Councillor Nann was informed that the due weight was given to the setback aspect of the development with consideration to the maintenance of the rest of the building. The agent stated that they had had no direct conversations with the neighbours, however, they had been notified.

6.      Councillor Shanks was informed by the Principal Heritage Officer that the development would not be prominent as the balustrading would screen the structure. The agent stated that they were trying to match old photographs of the building and they had submitted the Listed Building Consent (LBC) application as the neighbouring property was listed. It was noted that the Conservation Advisory Group (CAG) comments had been taken into account, as well as the council heritage team comments.

7.      Councillor Theobald was informed that the proposed lift would rise from the first floor to the top floor.

8.      Councillor Allen was informed by the agent that they did not consult the neighbouring residents and they had not spoken to the Regency Society.

9.      Councillor Loughran was informed by the agent that they were relying on the old photographs in the report for design and they had not contacted the Conservation Advisory Group (CAG).

10.   Councillor Galvin was informed that the building was not listed. Any work to the adjoining walls of neighbouring listed building would require consent.

Debate

11.   Councillor Nann objected to the development, which they considered to be shoved into the space. The councillor considered the project to be risky and expressed concern relating to the lack of consultation. The councillor was against the application. The Planning Manager noted that applicants were encouraged to consult, however, this could not be a reason to refuse the application.

12.   Councillor Theobald noted there were eleven representations from residents objecting to the development. It was noted that the proposed balustrade would hide the proposed flat, and the building was not listed.

13.   Councillor Allen expressed concerns at the lack of engagement. However, the councillor was generally disposed to building upwards instead of out.

14.   Councillor Sheard expressed disappointment at the lack of community engagement. It was noted that the development would not be seen from street level, the property would not be a House of Multiple Occupancy (HMO) and the property was near to amenities.

Vote

15.   A vote was taken, and by 4 to 5 the committee voted against the officer recommendation. (Councillor Thomson took no part in the decision-making process or the vote).

16.   Councillor Nann proposed a motion to refuse the application, seconded by Councillor Earthey.

17.   A recorded vote was taken, and Councillors Allen, Earthey, Galvin, Nann and Winder voted for the refusal. Councillors Shanks, Theobald, Sheard and Loughran voted against the refusal. (Councillor Thomson took no part in the decision-making process or the vote).

18.   RESOLVED: The planning committee agreed that planning permission be refused for the following reasons, subject to final agreement with the proposer and seconder:

19.   The scheme would result in an unacceptable loss of light to neighbouring residents, contrary to Policy DM20 of City Plan Part 2.

20.   The appearance of the development, primarily the glass frontage, would result in harm to the conservation area and the setting of the adjacent listed and locally listed buildings, contrary to Policy CP15 of CPP1 and Policies DM26, DM27 and DM28 of City Plan Part 2.