Agenda item - BH2024/02268 - 132 Kings Road, Brighton - Full Planning

1.    The case officer introduced the application to the committee.

Speakers

2.    Ward Councillor Thomson addressed the committee and stated that they object to the proposals. This is the third application for the property and the previous applications were rejected as they caused harm to the conservation area and the attached listed building. This appears to be development by stealth. The councillor was concerned that the proposed new roof to the rear of the building could be to support more development. The councillor was concerned that the bungaroosh walls would not be able to support any further development. The proposals were considered architectural vandalism, and the committee were asked to refuse the application.

3.    Chris Wilmshurst addressed the committee as the agent and stated that the previous application for four storeys had been refused on heritage grounds not planning. A revised scheme had also been refused but supported by the planning officer. The current application is for a refurbishment. The roofing needs repair, which results in an increase in height, along with new windows and balustrade. All the repairs are supported by the heritage officer as there would be no harm to the building. The committee were requested to support the application.

Answers to committee Members questions

4.    Councillor Hill was informed that the three-bed flat was currently in use and the standard head room was 2.3m. The application would accord with nationally described minimum space standards.

5.    Councillor Sheard was informed that the structural integrity of the building was not a planning matter.

6.    Councillor Nann was informed that the development required planning permission as the refurbishment was not like-for-like.

7.    Councillor Galvin was informed that the insulation of the bungaroosh walls was not a planning matter.

Debate

8.    Councillor Theobald considered the was no problem with the application as the new windows would be an improvement. It appeared the applicant had listened to planning officers. The councillor agreed with the recommendation to approve.

9.    Councillor Hill considered that the committee should only look at the application in front of them.

10. Councillor Earthey considered as there were no architectural heritage issues the committee should support the application.

11. Councillor Nann considered it was hard to vote against the application as the refurbishment was acceptable.

12. Councillor Robinson considered the development to be an improvement, especially the windows. The councillor supported the application.

13. Councillor Loughran supported the application as they considered the improvements were needed.

Vote

14. A vote was taken, and the committee agreed unanimously to grant planning permission.

15. RESOLVED: That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report and resolves to