Agenda item - BH2024/02981 - 119 Church Road, Hove - Full Planning

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

Speakers

2.    Courtney Darby addressed the agent acting on behalf of the applicant stated that this was not an application for an extension but a fully collapsible structure. Please only look at this application not any previous applications. The structure is of timber frame, with fenced sides and a retractable canopy, which is fundamentally different from before. The host building will be seen and not covered. The site is next to a brutalist car park and mostly invisible. It is noted that Historic England have not objected, and the rear garden will remain the same. The canopy is needed for the unpredictable weather. Support has been received from residents. Please defer and make a site visit.

3.    The case officer clarified that the retractable structure was considered the same in form and scale as an extension.

Answers to Committee Member Questions

4.    Councillor Shanks was informed that the fencing from 2024 application has been retained, and it was recognised by the applicant that some parts were unlawful. The fencing was attached to the boundary walls, but the listed building was not damaged. It was noted outside seating in the rear garden would be acceptable.

5.    Councillor Robinson was informed that the structure was not shown off the boundary walls. Other unsuitable structures in the surrounding area do not set a precedent and are not justification for more inappropriate development.

6.    Councillor Loughran was informed that the previous refusal and appeal decision related to the structure in the rear garden, even if not attached. It was noted that pre-application advice had been given but not adhered to.

Debate

7.    Councillor Robinson stated they knew the business on the site, and understood why they submitted the application; however, they should not go against policy or ignore advice. The councillor agreed with the officer recommendation to refuse.

8.    Councillor Earthey agreed with the officer recommendation to refuse. The councillor did not feel they could allow erosion of the conservation area.

9.    Councillor Theobald considered the applicant had partially complied with the planning officer and noted that parasols would be better than the proposal. The councillor agreed with the officer recommendation to refuse.

10. Councillor Sheard considered the application to be infringing on the listed building and the conservation area. The councillor agreed with the officer recommendation to refuse.

11. Councillor Loughran considered that the design quality had not met policy DM27. The councillor agreed with the officer recommendation to refuse.

Vote

12. A vote was taken, and the committee agreed unanimously to refuse planning permission in line with the officer recommendation. (Councillor Thomson had left the meeting and took no part in the discussion or decision-making process or those following).

13. RESOLVED: REFUSE planning permission for the following reasons: The development would cause harm to the historic significance of the grade II listed terrace and wider The Avenues and Cliftonville Conservation Areas due to its form, scale and materiality. It would remove the open rear garden/yard area and reduce the legibility of the historic plan form, and has introduced an alien, incongruous structure to the rear, visible from the public highway. For these reasons, the development is contrary to policies CP12 and CP15 of the Brighton & Hove City Plan Part One, and DM18, DM26, DM27 and DM29 of the Brighton & Hove City Plan Part Two.