Agenda item - Variation of a Section 106 Planning Agreement in Connection with Application BH2004/03712/FP, Stanmer House, Stanmer Park, Brighton

(copy attached).

259.1        Ms Burnett introduced the application and reported the planning history of the site. Whilst it was regrettable that a public access route to the Cedar Lawns would close this was balanced against the continued viability of the house and business.

                  Questions/Matters on Which Clarification was Sought

259.2        Councillor Steedman asked if under the terms of this variation the leaseholder would be able to determine when the gardens were publicly accessible, on a sliding scale, from not at all, to all of the time. Ms Burnett confirmed this.

259.3        Councillor Davey asked if any evidence had been submitted to show that the business and house would not remain viable unless this application was granted. Ms Burnett replied that arguments had been made in 2004 concerning the viability of the house, and it was on that basis that this application had been submitted.

259.4        Councillor Davey felt that if the Committee were being asked to take this into account as a material planning consideration then arguments relating to this should be included in the report, but no evidence had been presented to the Committee. Mr Vidler referred to the report and felt the proposals would improve the viability of the house.

259.5        Councillor Davey remained unconvinced that viability should be taken into account when no evidence for this had been presented to the Committee. He did not believe it was acceptable for the Committee to be asked to evaluate an aspect of the proposal without an argument for it. The Chairman believed the evidence formed part of the 2004 proposals, and assumed that the situation had not changed since this time.

259.6        Councillor Simson asked if this application would unify the gardens into one identity and Ms Burnett agreed, stated that they were current bisected by a temporary fence.

                  Debate and Decision Making Process

259.7        Councillor Steedman was astonished that this application had been presented before the Committee. He understood the rationale for enclosing the gardens and preventing public access, although he did not agree with it, but he did not understand the argument that this was for the viability of the house. No evidence had been contained in the report in respect of this, and no arguments presented to the Committee. As no case had been made to support this aspect of the application he could not agree with it.

259.8        Councillor Alford recognised there was anxiety about the closure of the gates and the ability of the public to gain access, and asked if any reassurances could be given. The Chairman noted that the Committee needed to decide on the application as it was presented before them.

259.9        Councillor McCaffery agreed that the information contained in the 2004 report would have been useful to enable the Committee to make a considered judgement of the application.

259.10      Councillor Mrs Theobald noted that an alternative public route to the Cedar Lawns was being provided and the enclosure of these gardens was a very small part of the park. She accepted the argument that security was needed for the house and gardens.

259.11      Councillor Simson added that the new route was more disabled accessible and this application would put the gardens back into full use with the house as they would have been in the past. She felt it was a good use of the area and also favoured the proposed landscaping.

259.12      Councillor Steedman agreed that the new path and landscaping were welcome but did not feel this naturally led to removing a public right of way. He added that this did not match with the South Downs National Park objectives either.

259.13      Councillor Davey asked if there was a precedent for the gardens to be enclosed. The Conservation and Design Manager, Mr Dowty, stated that the enclosure of the gardens for restoration and maintenance was a more recent practice and the extension of the gardens was also recent. Historically the park would not have been enclosed at all, but the gardens were provided to make full use of the house.

259.14      A vote was taken and on a vote of 6 for and 5 against variation of the Section 106 Agreement was agreed as proposed in the report.

259.15      RESOLVED – That the proposed variation be agreed subject to requirements that an alternative access route be formed and available for use and all associated landscaping be carried out prior to the access across the lawn being closed. Furthermore the temporary fencing currently in situ bisecting the lawn would be required to be removed within 28 days of the alternative access route being made available for use.