Agenda item - BH2013/00937 - 1 Sillwood Terrace, Brighton - Full Planning

Formation of mansard roof to accommodate one 2no bedroom flat with roof terrace.

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Formation of mansard roof to accommodate one 2no bedroom flat with roof terrace.

(1)                   The Area Planning Manager introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to photographs, plans and elevational drawings. The building was located on the southern side of Western Road and had a commercial unit on the ground floor with flats above; there were also Grade II listed buildings to the south of the application site. In 2005 permission was granted for the development of a mansard roof to form a 1 bedroom unit; this permission had not been implemented and since lapsed. The main considerations related to the impact of the character and appearance on the conservation area; the impact on amenity and transport considerations. The building was an end of terrace with attractive bays at the Western Road frontage that made a positive contribution to the street scene; the proposal would be set back and not visible from Western Road and was not considered harmful to the Regency Square Conservation Area. The key policy considerations had also not changed since the previous permission, and there would be no harm to amenity or create a loss of outlook. For the reasons outlined in the report the application was recommended for approval.

Public Speakers and Questions

(2)                   Mr Andrew Shippey spoke in opposition to  the application in his capacity as local resident; he stated that the current roof form was flat and any changes to this building could set precedence for others in the terrace. He noted that the proposed construction area would be directly above his own flat and raised concerns in relation to the impact on his day to day life; the potential danger and damp ingress. Mr Shippey questioned whether there would be sufficient access to the new flat from the existing hallway and stairwell, and he noted the objections from the Heritage Team and the Conservation Advisory Group (CAG).

Questions for Officers, Debate and Decision Making Process

(3)                   In response to a query from Mr Gowans of CAG it was explained by the Area Planning Manager that the supplementary planning guidance had not changed since the approval of the 2005 scheme, and the local planning authority had to give this decision significant weight when making the recommendation.

(4)                   It was confirmed to Councillor Wells that the arrangements during construction  for neighbours  would not be of material consideration to the application.

(5)                   It was confirmed for Councillor Pissaridou that the proposed material of the mansard roof would be slate.

(6)                   In response to Councillor Hamilton it was confirmed that the roofline of the row of terraces was currently uniform, and the proposal did not differ from the 2005 permission,

(7)                   Mr Gowans noted that CAG had recommended that the application be refused due to the visibility of the development and the prominence in the Western Road street scene; he went on to reference the SPD 12 in relation to mansard roofs and the comments from the Heritage Officer.

(8)                   Councillor Davey noted his view that the only reason to support the application was because of the 2005 permission; otherwise he was of the view was the application was not acceptable. Councillor Pissaridou echoed these comments, and added that she would not support the Officer recommendation.

(9)                   Councillor Duncan stated that he could not support the Officer recommendation, but noted that if refused the application might  be successful if appealed.

(10)               The Senior Solicitor explained that the Committee was not legally bound by the 2005 permission, but to depart from this the Committee would need good planning reasons, and it was highlighted there was no policy difference between this application and the 2005 permission. Generally speaking, when the Inspector looked at decisions at appeal significant weight was placed on previously decisions. The Head of Development Control added that the local planning authority had looked very carefully at the application and placed weight on the 2005 consent, notwithstanding that it was time expired, they had recommended approval.

(11)               Councillor Littman noted the position in relation to policy, and the advice given by Officers, but highlighted that it was still within the remit of the Committee to refuse the application if they were so minded.

(12)               It was confirmed for Councillor Duncan that the 2005 permission had been a delegated decision.

(13)               A vote was taken and the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission was not carried on a vote of 4 against and 8 abstentions. Councillor Mac Cafferty proposed reasons for the refusal and these were seconded by Councillor Duncan; a short adjournment was then held to allow Councillor Cafferty, Councillor Duncan, the Head of Development Control, the Senior Solicitor and the Area Planning Manager to draft the reasons for refusal in full. These reasons were then read to the Committee, and it was agreed that they reflected what had been put forward by Members. A recorded vote was then taken with the proposed reasons for refusal and Councillors: Mac Cafferty, Carden, Pissaridou, Hamilton and Duncan voted that permission be refused; Councillors: Jones, Hyde, Cox, Davey, Littman, A. Norman and Wells abstained from the vote.

129.5    RESOLVED – That the Committee considered the Officer recommendation to grant permission, but resolves to REFUSE planning permission for the reason set out below:

              i.           By reason of the scale, form, shape, height and depth of the proposed development it fails to respect the existing roofscape of the terrace of which the host property forms part and therefore neither preserves nor enhances the character of the Regency Square Conservation Area. Moreover, because it interrupts the roofscape the proposed development is likely to be harmful to longer views of the terrace from street level within the Conservation Area. The proposed development is therefore contrary to policy HE6 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan 2005 and SPD09: Architectural Features.