Agenda item - BH2025/03024 - 2 Richmond Road - Householder Planning Consent

1.    The case officer introduced the application to the committee.

Speakers

2.    Dominic Furlong of the Round Hill Society addressed the committee and stated that they objected to the application on behalf of the society. The application has undergone some changes, however, there were still elements of concern. The rear dormers should under policy SP12 not unbalance or disturb the roofscape. The application property is one of four houses in a unified composition. Most properties have rooflights and the dormers at number 10 were introduced before protection was introduced.

3.    Michael Doyle of the Conservation Advisory Group (CAG) stated that the group were working with the council on heritage and conservation. The groups views were represented in the case officers report. The group support the box sash windows, welcome conservation rooflights, however, there are no other rear elevation dormers in this section of buildings. The harm would be viewable from nearby roads. The group objects to the opening of the ‘blind window’ on the front elevation. The committee were requested to the refuse the application.

4.    Chloe Lewis addressed the committee as the agent acting on behalf of the applicant and stated that they appreciated the case officer’s recommendation to grant planning permission. The two rear dormers will be hard to see from nearby properties, and there are other dormers in the street and nearby. The dormers are required for stair access to the loft room. The front elevation window does not interfere with the building and there are others in the road. The twitten has been graphitised and the applicant wishes to improve on this. The applicant does not want to change the conservation area.

Answers to Committee Members Questions

5.    Councillor Cattell was informed that policies SPD9 and SPD12 were used to consider the two rear dormers, and they were in line with these and there are other dormers nearby.

6.    Councillor Earthey was informed that there were skylights nearby, dormers and windows in the front elevation blank space. The Planning Manager confirmed that they would be resistant to change if there were no others in the area.

7.    Councillor Pickett was informed that it was possible for the bathroom to not have a window, however, there are others in the road. The councillor was informed that they needed to consider the application before them and committee could not refuse just the blank window infill.

8.    Councillor Shanks was informed that the proposed bathroom window would have a hardwood frame filling the blank space. This was considered better than the UVPC windows existing in other properties.

9.    Councillor Robinson was informed that the dormer windows were similar to others, however, they were on the rear.

10. Councillor Theobald was informed that the new bathroom window would fill the blank space on the front of the property. Others nearby have small windows, which may have been inserted before regularisation.

11. Councillor Thomson was informed that the grouping within the conservation area was an issue for consideration.

Debate

12. Councillor Shanks considered the conservation area was important and the committee needed to be careful. The councillor was against the application.

13. Councillor Pickett considered the blind window should remain. The councillor was against the application.

14. Councillor Theobald considered it was important to keep the conservation area standards and the twitten was a mess. The councillor was against the application.

15. Councillor Robinson considered the two dormers to be acceptable; however, they were not sure about the blank window.

16. Councillor Parrott considered the blank window to be an issue; however, the two dormers were acceptable.

17. Councillor Sheard considered it was a shame about the blank window being removed; however, the design of the replacement window was good. The councillor supported the application.

Vote

18. A vote was held, and by 7 to 3, the committee agreed to grant planning permission.

19.RESOLVED: That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report and resolves to GRANT planning permission subject to the Conditions and Informatives in the report.