Agenda item - Application BH2011/03803, 83 Upper North St, Brighton

Installation of French doors to replace existing ground floor rear window

(1)          The Area Planning Manager (West) gave a presentation detailing the scheme by reference to photographs and drawings. The building was a terrace house on Upper North Street, and the application was for listed building consent for the removal of the window to replace with French doors, and letters of representation had received in support of the application. Members were asked to consider if the application would negatively affect the listed building and its setting; granting the application would necessitate the demolition of masonry contrary to policy which stated it should be retained. The application was recommended for refusal for the reasons set out in the report.

              Public Speakers and Questions

(2)          Mr J. Baines, the agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application stating that the doors would reflect the detail of the existing windows and improve the sunlight and access to the rear garden. Similar work had been undertaken on other properties on the street, and pre-application advice had suggested that the application could be recommended for approval.

(3)          In response to a question from Councillor Rufus Mr Baines was not able to confirm if the window in question was original; however in response to further queries from Councillor Hyde and Councillor Simson it was confirmed that the windows on the first and second floors at the rear of the property were of the wrong style and not original.

(4)          Councillor Hawtree asked why the additional access to the rear was necessary when there was already access through the kitchen. In response Mr Baines explained that the access through an amenity room was preferable and more practical.

              Questions for Officers, Debate and Decision Making Process

(5)          Councillor Hawtree asked for more information on the rationale behind the lean to which had been granted permission in 1997/8. Officers did not have this information, but highlighted that the Council was operating under new policies and a new SPD.

(6)          Councillor Rufus stated that the impact would be minimal if granted, and the rear of the building was already compromised.

(7)          Councillor Farrow expressed concern that policy was not being applied fairly and consistently as similar works had been allowed on nearby properties. Officers stated that such works could have been granted permission before the adoption of the local plan.

(8)          Councillor Hawtree stated that the rear of the building was in good condition, and he would be voting with the Officer recommendation.

(9)          Councillor Bowden suggested that policy had been applied too rigidly in consideration of the recommendation, and he stated that the installation of French doors would not harm the listed building. Councillor Hawtree noted his disagreement with these comments.

(10)       Councillor Hyde stated that the rear of the building was already compromised, and felt that the application would improve the living conditions for the residents.

(11)       Councillor Farrow reiterated his earlier views, and stated that he would vote against the Officer recommendation.

(12)       Councillor Rufus explained that it was still important to consider the conditions for residents who lived in listed buildings, and, as such, would be voting against the Office recommendation.

(13)       Councillor Simson asked that, if granted, an informative be added that the window be recycled rather than destroyed.

(14)       Councillor Carol Theobald stated that she thought the proposals were acceptable as they were at the rear of the property.

(15)       The Area Planning Manager (West) highlighted as this was an application for listed building consent that Members should only consider the impact on the listed building. The Head of Development Control also stated that approximately 1% of buildings nationally were listed as they were considered to be of important historic value.

(16)       A vote was taken of the 12 Members present, and listed building consent was granted on a vote of 6 to 6 on the Chair’s casting vote.

157.11  RESOLVED - That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation and the policies and guidance set out in the report and resolves to REFUSE listed building consent for the following reason:

1. Policy HE1 states proposals involving the alteration of a Listed Building will only be permitted where the proposal would not have an adverse effect on the architectural and historic character of the building. The proposal to remove the original window, which is a historic feature of the property, and to demolish part of the property’s historic fabric is contrary to the above mentioned policy and the guidance contained in SPD09 Architectural Features, and is considered to cause harm to this Grade II Listed Building.

Informatives:

1. This decision is based on drawing nos.UNS03A and UNS04 received on 09-Jan-2012.