Agenda item - BH2018/03198-Lanterns, The Green, Rottingdean, Brighton-Householder Planning Consent

Conversion of attic with dormers to front roof slope and roof lights to rear.

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE

Ward Affected: Rottingdean Coastal

              Conversion of attic with dormers to front roof slope and roof lights to rear.

(1)             The Principal Planning Officer, Liz Arnold, introduced the application and gave a detailed presentation by reference to site plans, elevational drawings and site plans detailing the proposed scheme. The site was a single dwelling which was part of a complex of converted farm buildings and was covered by an Article 4 Direction, which removed permitted development and was adjacent to Grade II listed properties and a locally listed property and was a resubmission of a previously refused scheme which had been dismissed by a Planning Inspector on appeal who had concluded that the proposed dormers did not preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area and were contrary to policy.

(2)          It was noted that although Lanterns was not a listed building it was within the Rottingdean Conservation Area and was considered to contribute positively to its appearance and character. The uninterrupted tiled roof was considered its most significant and visible feature and the least altered feature in a much altered building. It was considered that significant alteration to its roof would harm the character of the building and the conservation area and that the main considerations in determining the application related to the impact of the proposed development on the appearance and character of the host building the wider street scene and the amenities of adjacent occupiers.

(3)          Whilst the impact on neighbouring properties was not considered such to harm their amenity or to warrant refusal, the proposed dormers although fewer in number were still considered detrimental to the character of the conservation area and would disrupt the roof form of the building and refusal was therefore recommended.

              Public Speakers

(4)          Councillor Mears spoke in her capacity as a Local Ward Councillor in support of the scheme. Councillor Mears referred to the fact that the Appeal Inspector when refusing the earlier application had indicated that if a new/revised application was submitted there should be a more flexible approach to dormers citing that the Council’s SPD2013 also indicated that a flexible approach seeking to accommodate development including roof extensions should be used in conservation areas whilst maintaining the heritage credentials of buildings. In her view this had been done, the site was also well set back from the road, the dormers would not be visible from the road and would not therefore affect the street scene.

(5)          Ms Hall spoke one of the applicants spoke in support of the application stating that they had affected significant improvements to the property which respected its character. They had made amendments to the scheme as originally submitted in order to overcome the reasons for refusal and were desperately in need of this additional space for their grown up children. The roof was not the original and had been designed to be sympathetic to the building, similar works had been carried out to properties in the general vicinity.

              Questions of Officers

(6)          Councillor Page requested to see photographs of the other houses in the vicinity and information regarding whether or not the skylights on those buildings complied with planning/building control requirements.

(7)          Councillor C Theobald, asked to see elevational drawings showing the current and proposed schemes, with particular reference to the proposed treatments at roof level and also the distance of the property on site from the road and it was explained that was approximately 52m.

(8)          Councillor Miller sought clarification regarding the materials proposed and it was confirmed that these remained the same as in the earlier application.

(9)          Councillor Hyde referred to the fact that the Planning Inspector had indicated that a flexible approach was recommended seeking clarification regarding interpretation of that statement. The Principal Planning Officer, Policy, Projects and Heritage, Tim Jefferies, explained that the Inspector was of the view that a “one size fits all” approach should be used and it had not been in this instance. Although amendments had been made to the scheme they had not been sufficient to overcome the previous reasons for refusal.

(10)       Councillor Moonan sought clarification regarding any dialogue which had taken place with the applicants and it was confirmed that clear advice had been given and that pre-application advice would also have been available to them.

              Debate and Decision Making Process

(11)       Councillor Miller, stated that he was of the view that although located in the Conservation Area the application site was not visible from the road and would therefore in his view have little impact upon it. The applicant had sought to mitigate against any potential harm and he considered that the scheme was acceptable. Councillor C Theobald also concurred in that view.

(12)       Councillor O’Quinn was in agreement that the applicants had made adjustments in order to make the scheme acceptable and was in agreement that in view of the distance from neighbouring dwellings and the roadway the scheme would not be detrimental.

(13)       Councillor Page demurred from that view considering that the integrity of the existing roof scape should be respected.

(14)       Councillor Gilbey concurred and was of the view that policy guidance was clear, as the scheme retained many of the features of the previously refused scheme she did not consider that the current scheme was acceptable.

(15)       The Chair, Councillor Cattell, stated that she was in agreement with the officer and did not consider that it was appropriate to introduce dormers into the roof of a farm building. Whilst it would have been helpful if section drawings had been provided it was clear to her that very little additional space would be created as a result, and were insufficient to justify a departure from policy.

(16)       A vote was taken and the 10 Members present when the vote was taken voted by 6 to 4 that planning permission be refused.

112.3    RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report and resolves to refuse planning permission for the reasons also set out in the report.