Agenda item - Application BH2011/00286, Stanmer House, Stanmer Park, Brighton

(copy attached).

258.1        The Committee considered a report on behalf of the South Downs National Park Authority regarding application BH2011/00286, Stanmer House, Stanmer Park, Brighton. The Deputy Development Control Manager, Mr Vidler, stated that on 1^st April the South Downs National Park Authority had become the local planning authority for the park area. The Council now acted as its agent in determining applications within this area. Mr Vidler referred to the purpose and duty of the National Park that Councillors should take into consideration, but added that applications would still be determined in accordance with the Local Plan.

258.2        Councillor Simson asked if the Committee were still able to approve applications in the Park and Mr Vidler confirmed this. The Senior Solicitor, Ms Woodward, added that every normal material planning consideration was relevant and applications in the South Downs National Park area relevant to Brighton & Hove, would continue to be determined against the planning policies of Brighton & Hove City Council until such time as the South Downs National Park Authority developed their own policies.

258.3        The Area Planning Manager (East), Ms Burnett, introduced the application and presented plans, photos and elevational drawings. The application needed to be determined on the basis of the two statutory purposes of the South Downs National Park Authority. Discussions had taken place with the applicant around providing continued opportunities for public access across the garden area, and it was agreed that informal access would be provided at the times when the house was open to the public. There had been 13 letters of objection, and objections from the local ward Councillor, the Conservation Advisory Group, Friends of Stanmer Park, Stanmer Preservation Society and the Open Spaces Society. Comments had been received from the South Downs National Park Authority that the Committee had complete discretion to determine the proposals without further reference to the SDNPA, the informal arrangement to secure access to the garden is considered appropriate and consideration should be given to the two statutory National Park purposes.

                  The proposal was considered at odds with the open nature of Stanmer Park, but was not considered to cause undue harm. Materials would be agreed via condition. The applicant had stated that enclosure of the garden was necessary to provide privacy during private functions in the garden, and for security of the main house. Additional landscaping was proposed to draw the eye away from the enclosure. A previous approval for enclosure was a material consideration, and the height and design of this application was identical in nature. Overall, it was considered that the application would not cause material harm to the setting of the park and would keep the Italian Gates in their historic park setting.

                  Questions/Matters on Which Clarification was Sought

258.4        Councillor Simson asked if the fencing would go into any vegetation and Ms Burnett confirmed it would not.

258.5        Councillor Davey asked for further clarification on the agreement reached with the applicant regarding informal access. Ms Burnett replied that it had been informally agreed when the house was open and no private events were running the gates and access route would be left open. Ms Woodward added that the section 106 agreement of the original application required that the house would be available for public access on around 50 days per year. It appeared that the gardens were also informally left open to the public, but this was not a requirement  of the section 106 agreement.

                  Public Speakers

258.6        Ms Lyon addressed the Committee and stated that if the garden access was only open when the house was open to the public, this would mean it would be open only 2 hours a week on Thursday mornings. She accepted that the controversy over the route may seem exceptional and agreed that the applicant had invested a lot of money into the park, but felt that it was currently widely enjoyed by a great number of people who could easily access the flat area of lawns in an area of outstanding natural beauty, at the same time as viewing the house without obstruction. The railings of the proposed enclosure would impede this enjoyment. There was an established public right to walk through the garden and Ms Lyon suggested a compromise that the applicant should apply to the Council when they wanted to close the gates for the purposes of hosting private events. She felt that this would be an acceptable compromise for everyone involved with Stanmer Park.

258.7        Councillor Simson asked if Ms Lyon appreciated that the enclosure was also for security of the house at other times of day and Ms Lyon agreed that she was aware of this argument, but felt it was mainly hearsay. She did not feel that crime continued to be a problem at the house and it was now protected by cameras and dog patrols. The area was generally very safe.

258.8        Councillor Cobb asked if it was reasonable that the gates would be closed during the setting up and closing down of events. Ms Lyon agreed with this and felt it was a sensible compromise for the applicant to apply for a time period of closure that allowed for setting up and closing down. This would ensure privacy for events and also keep the principle of access intact.

258.9        Mr Holland, the applicant, addressed the Committee and stated that no account had been taken of the maintenance works that were necessary at the house, for which the gates would need to be kept closed. Events were held on most days and there was a long period necessary to set up and close down these events. It would not be practical in his view to apply to the Council for closure every time this was necessary. Regarding relocation of the pathway around the garden, Mr Holland did not believe any wheelchair user groups had been consulted, and in his view the proposed new access was much better for wheelchair users. The proposal would regularise the garden as it would have been and provide an easier route to the Cedar Lawns. The house and gardens catered for thousands of visitors every year and it was in Mr Holland’s interest to welcome these visitors as they were also potential customers. The proposal would provide privacy for people at important events and functions such as weddings and would prevent members of the public wandering through the garden unnecessarily.

258.10      Councillor Mrs Theobald asked if Mr Holland welcomed occasional access, and whether there were any problems with crime at the house. Mr Holland replied that there had been serious problems with crime and all of this had been notified to the police. He welcomed people into the garden whenever it was feasible to do so.

258.11      Councillor Davey asked when the gates would be left open. Mr Holland replied that an alternative access would be provided to the Cedar Lawns to maintain public access. Councillor Davey did not feel this answered his question and Mr Holland replied that they would be left open as often as possible, but as leaseholders to the gardens and house it was necessary for members of the public to fit in with the normal business operation of the house.

258.12      Councillor Simson asked what the implications of refusing this application would be to the business. Mr Holland replied that the temporary situation of a fence dissecting the gardens would remain and full maintenance of the gardens would not take place. It would affect his business in the longer term as full use of the gardens could not be implemented.

                  Debate and Decision Making Process

258.13      Councillor Mrs Theobald felt that the applicant had invested a lot of money into the house and gardens and without his investment the site would be derelict. She felt this was a sensible idea to ensure the ongoing viability of the house and as the gardens would still remain open to the public on some occasions she was happy to grant the application.

258.14      Councillor Steedman stated that his views remained unchanged from the previous application and that proposal would disrupt the visual amenity of the house from the park, the design of the railings was poor and substandard, and there remained ongoing issues of public access that had not been resolved. Councillor Steedman would be voting against the application.

258.15      A vote was taken and on a vote of 6 for and 5 against planning permission was granted subject to the conditions and informatives in the report.

258.16      RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in paragraph 8 of the report and resolves to grant planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives in the report.