Agenda item - BH2013/00256 - 1st to 3rd Floors, 7 Waterloo Street, Hove - Householder Planning

Removal of valley roof over rear projection, building up of surrounding walls and replacement of UPVc window with timber door, all to facilitate the creation of a roof terrace. Replacement of UPVc window with timber sliding sash. Repair of rear chimney stack and installation of new chimney pots.

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE

Removal of valley roof over rear projection, building up of surrounding walls and replacement of UPVC window with timber door, all to facilitate the creation of a roof terrace.Replacement of UPVC window with timber sliding sash. Repair of rear chimney stack and installation of new chimney pots.

(1)                   It was noted that this application had been the subject of a site visit prior to the meeting.

(2)                   The Area Planning Manager introduced application BH2013/00256 for housing holder planning permission and application BH2013/00511 for listed building consent, and gave a presentation by reference to plans, photographs and elevational drawings. It was noted that since the publication of the agenda the applicant had appealed both applications to the Planning Inspectorate on the grounds of non-determination. As such the decision had been taken out of the hands of the Local Planning Authority, and Members were being asked to take a view had they been in a position to determine the applications; the recommendations on both applications had therefore been changed to ‘would have refused.’ The application sought consent for a roof terrace on an existing out-rigger, and this would be achieved through the removal of the pitched ‘butterfly’ roof. An existing window would be replaced with a door to provide access, and a bathroom window would also be replaced with a more appropriately designed timber window. The terrace would have raised parapets at 1.1 metres high. The proposed window and door replacements were seen as a gain in place of the existing UPVC windows; however, the details of the design were not considered appropriate nor the mechanisms of the proposed sash windows. The ‘butterfly’ design of the roof was considered to be original, and Officers had concern for the loss of this feature as well as the potential noise disturbance from the terrace to neighbours. For the reasons set out in the reports the applications were recommend for refusal had the Committee been in a position to determine them.

Questions for Officers

(3)                   Councillor Wealls asked for more information in relation to concerns about the noise; in response Officers explained that the proposed terrace had the potential to be used more intensively.

(4)                   In response to a query from Councillor Hyde it was explained by Officers that they had no evidence to substantiate claims in the representation made by Councillor Sykes that the Planning Authority had not been forthcoming in discussions with the applicant.

(5)                   Councillor Wealls asked for more information in relation to the design of the proposed windows, and it was explained that the glazing bars and opening mechanism of the window were inappropriate and the door would be of modern design.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(6)                   Councillor Randall stated that he felt from the site visit that the proposal was almost unnoticeable, and he would vote against the Officer recommendation.

(7)                   Councillor Mac Cafferty noted that policy allowed the opportunity for sensitive alterations, and he felt this could be such an opportunity.

(8)                   Councillor Hyde noted that the application would provide amenity for a resident who did not currently have any outside space, and the existing roof structure was four storeys up. She noted that the rest of the property had been sympathetically designed and refurbished, and if granted this could be a further improvement.

(9)                   Councillor Wealls expressed his concern about the window design.

(10)               Councillor Davey expressed concern that the Committee might be minded to go against the recommendation made by the Heritage Officer; he also noted that it was a shame there was no comment from the Conservation Advisory Group (CAG).

(11)               Councillor Jones stated this was difficult decision; he felt this was a good use of the space, but the application could potentially remove an interesting and historic roofscape.

(12)               The Deputy Development Control Manager highlighted Council guidance which was explicit about retaining the original forms of roofs to listed buildings, and the Area Planning Manager also noted that a similar scheme had been approved on a neighbouring property, but this property was not listed.

(13)               A vote was taken and the Officer recommendation that the Committee ‘would have refused’ the application was not carried on a vote of 5 to 5 on the Chair’s casting vote. A recorded vote was then taken with the proposed reasons for approval and Councillors: Mac Cafferty, Hyde, Cox, Wealls and Randall voted that planning permission should be approved; Councillors: Jones, Carden, Davey, Gilbey and Hamilton voted that permission should be refused. The Chair exercised his casting vote to in favour of approving the application.

6.4                  RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken the Officer recommendation that it would have refused the application into consideration, but resolves that it WOULD HAVE GRANTED planning permission had it been in a position to determine the application for the reasons set out below:

        i.                 The proposed development comprises sensitive alterations and any overlooking, loss of privacy and noise disturbance is not so significant so as to cause material harm.

Note: Councillor Littman was not present at the Committee, and Councillor Carol Theobald was not present during the debate and vote on this application.