Agenda item - BH2013/02063 - 41 Hove Park Road, Hove - Householder Planning Permission

Remodelling and extension of main roof to facilitate loft conversion incorporating rooflights and a lantern light. Installation of lantern lights to flat roof at rear.

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE

Remodelling and extension of main roof to facilitate loft conversion incorporating rooflights and a lantern light. Installation of lantern lights to flat roof at rear.

(1)                   The Area Planning Manager introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to photographs plans and elevational drawings. The application site related to a large detached family home, and the application sought permission for the remodelling and extension of the roof to infill the area between the two gables and create additional accommodation on the second floor of the building. Since the closure of the agenda additional representations had been received from neighbours, Councillor Bennett and the applicant’s agent. The recent adopted guidance for extensions and alterations was referenced and it was considered that the proposals would cause significant harm to the appearance of the property. The proposal to extend the roof-slope would create two additional bedrooms and an additional bathroom. It was felt that in isolation the roof form would not appear unusual; however, the creation of a flat area of flat roof would be out of keeping and an unusual roof form. Officers were of the view that resulting form would be dominant and create an awkward, contrived roof scene. For the reasons outlined in the report the application was recommended for refusal.

Public Speakers and Questions

(2)                   Mrs Barwell spoke in support of the application in her capacity as the applicant. She stated that she and her husband had bought the property six years ago and that the roofline already appeared odd when compared to the other houses in the street. The property was very bottom heavy, and the original 1920’s roof was currently in a very poor state of repair, and the application sought to remedy the existing odd roof form. It was important for the family to stay in the area, and they had consulted with neighbours who also felt the proposal would be an improvement on what was currently there. They had worked closely with their architect to create an aesthetically pleasing design and wanted it to appear better from the rear of the property. The property was also set quite far back from and not very visible from the street. Mrs Barwell stated that she hoped her presentation had demonstrated that the proposals would have less of an impact than the Officer report suggested.

(3)                   Councillor Bennett spoke in support of the application in her capacity as the Local Ward Councillor. She stated that the proposals were very similar to other schemes in her ward that had also recently received consent at Committee. The proposals would enhance the appearance of the property. There were six letters of support – including both Ward Councillors, and there would be no loss of privacy, sunlight or amenity for neighbours. The application would enhance the street scene and the Committee were asked to grant the application.

Questions for Officers

(4)                   Following queries from several Members some of the images used during the presentation were shown to the Committee again.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(5)                   Councillor Wells stated that he quite liked the application as it would infill the gap between the ridges appropriately. He stated he had no objection to the scheme and would be voting against the Officer recommendation.

(6)                   Councillor Hyde stated that the building and roof form were ‘ugly’. She felt that the application would tidy up the roof shape, and could not see any reason to refuse the application.

(7)                   Councillor Phillips stated that she did not think the building was unattractive, and that the proposed design at the back would be better; however, she felt that the proposed form at the front would be unsightly and as such she would be voting in support of the Officer recommendation.

(8)                   A vote was taking and planning was refused on a vote of 5 to 5 with one abstention on the Chair’s casting vote.

56.11    RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out below and resolves to REFUSE planning permission.

Reasons for Refusal:

        i.                 The development by reason of its design and form in relation to the existing house and in the context of the surrounding area would create contrived and disjointed roof to the building which fails to respect the existing features of the property and harm the existing character and appearance of Hove Park Road. The development is therefore considered contrary to policies QD1, QD2 and QD14 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan and Supplementary Planning Document – Design Guide for Extensions and Alterations (SPD12)

Informatives:

        i.                 In accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy SS1 of the Brighton & Hove City Plan Part One (submission document) the approach to making a decision on this planning application has been to apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development. The Local Planning Authority seeks to approve planning applications which are for sustainable development where possible.

Note: Councillor Wakefield was not present at the meeting.