Agenda item - BH2013/03680 - 19 Queens Park Terrace, Brighton - Householder Planning Permission

Formation of rear dormer.

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE

Formation of rear dormer.

(1)                   The Area Planning Manager introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to plans, photographs and elevational drawings. The application site related to a two storey terrace within the Queen’s Park Conservation Area that backed onto the Grade II listed primary school. A similar scheme had been refused on the site in December 2012, and the appeal had been dismissed by the Inspector; this application now sought a smaller rear dormer. The main considerations related to the impact of the dormer on the host building, and the wider impact on the Conservation Area and nearby listed building. It was considered that the proposed dormer would still have significant impact; be visible from the rear and did not comply with policy as it failed to relate to the fenestration at the rear. It was noted that there were a number of existing dormers in the immediate area, but many of these did not have any planning history and the Inspector had not attached any weight to these in consideration of the December 2012 application. The dormer was considered unsuitable and overly dominant and the application was recommended for refusal for the reasons set out in the report.

Public Speakers and Questions

(2)                   Ms Luisa de Paula spoke in support of the application in her capacity as the applicant. She stated that she understood and agreed with the policy of the local planning authority to maintain the character of the conservation area, and this application had sought to address the previous refusal by proposing a smaller dormer that would still make the attic room practical and usable. There were a number of other dormers in close proximity to the property and many of these had been built after the designation of the conservation area, and those to the left of the property, which had been granted permission in 2007, were considered much more visible. The family had spent time and money restoring the house and it now made a greater contribution to the conservation area, and without the dormer the attic room would be compromised. The scheme would help to improve the long term family home, and there was support from neighbours and the nearby school.

Questions for Officers

(3)                   The distance from the roof space to St. Luke’s Terrace was clarified for Councillor Hyde.

(4)                   In response to Councillor Davey the Area Planning Manager explained that the local planning authority would normally seek dormer extensions that were modest in size and aligned with the existing fenestration as set out in the SPD. It was also confirmed that the policy applied across the city.

(5)                   In response to Councillor Pissaridou it was explained that several of the nearby dormers did not have any planning history, and the Case Officer had placed significant weight on the decision of the Inspector.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(6)                   Councillor Hyde noted that she understood the recommendation, and had taken into account the decision of the Inspector, but she felt that due to distance involved the policy was of less relevance in relation to this application. If the dormer was aligned with the existing windows then the space would be compromised; with all this in mind she stated she would not support the Officer recommendation.

(7)                   Councillor Wells noted that the property could not be seen from Queen’s Park Terrace, and smaller dormers would make the rooms unusable; the windows were also at the back of the building and not overlooked. With this in mind he would not support the Officer recommendation.

(8)                   Councillor Littman stated that he fully understood the Officer recommendation, but felt he was not able to support it making reference to the support of the local school and the neighbours.

(9)                   Councillor Duncan stated his view that a refusal would be unreasonable, and as such he would not support the Officer recommendation.

(10)               Councillor Pissaridou stated she could not support the Officer recommendation, but she could understand the reason for the recommendation.

(11)               A vote was taken and the Officer recommendation to refuse planning permission was not carried on a vote of 10 against with 2 abstentions. Councillor Hyde proposed reasons for the approval and these were seconded by Councillor Duncan. 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 approval and Councillors: Jones, Hyde, Carden, Cox, Pissaridou, Hamilton, Littman, A. Norman, Duncan and Wells voted that permission be granted; Councillors: Mac Cafferty and Davey abstained from the vote.

129.8    RESOLVED – That the Committee considered the Officer recommendation to refuse planning permission, but resolves to GRANT planning permission for the reason set out below, and subject to such conditions as shall be approved by the Head of Development Control:

              i.           The proposed development, due to its design, size and siting, would not result in harm to the host building or to the Queen's Park Conservation Area.