Agenda item - BH2014/02404 - 8 Chesham Road, Brighton -Householder Planning Consent

Alterations incorporating changes from rear pitched roof to mansard roof, dormer to front elevation and revised fenestration.

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE

Ward: East Brighton

Alterations incorporating changes from rear pitched roof to mansard roof, dormer to front elevation and revised fenestration.

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

(2)             The Area Planning Manager, Nicola Hurley, introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to plans, photographs and elevational drawings. The application site related to a mid-terrace property with a basement on the northern side of Chesham Road which was part of a group of four dwellings backing onto St. Mary’s Place. The application was a resubmission following an earlier refusal for a mansard roof and dormer to the front. The previous decision had been refused at appeal and the decision of the inspector was material to the consideration of this application; it was also noted the inspector had considered the front dormer to be acceptable. The scale of the rear mansard roof was the same as previously proposed and the windows would align with those below. Whilst it was acknowledged there were similar rear extensions at numbers 5 & 6 there was no planning history for these and the principle of the mansard was considered unacceptable. The inspector had previously felt that rear extension would have negative impact and the shape and profile would be alien to the property. For the reasons set out in the report the application was recommended for refusal.

Public Speaker(s) and Questions

(3)             Councillor Mitchell spoke in support of the application in her capacity as the local Ward Councillor; she stated that since the first refusal in 2012 the applicant had reduced the size of the proposals and improved the design of the windows and the roof. Councillor Mitchell noted her view that the previous application should have come before the Committee following the changes in relation to the Scheme of Delegation. The proposed alterations would allow the property to accommodate three separate bedrooms and allow a better use of the space within the property. The new windows would not impact on neighbouring properties and the whole scheme would be in a form that was in keeping; with materials to match the existing house. It was highlighted that no objections had been received, and the scheme would be of high quality.

(4)             In response to Councillor K. Norman it was confirmed by Councillor Mitchell that the previous scheme had received 13 letters of support.

(5)             Mr James Eyre spoke in his capacity as the applicant and stated that the scheme sought to allow the reconfiguration of one of the internal staircases which he considered to currently be a safety issue. The new roof would also include photovoltaic elements. Consultation had been undertaken with the residents to the rear in St. Mary’s Place, and one of the residents whom had previously objected to the scheme had since withdrawn the objection. Attention was to drawn to the similar neighbouring extensions, and it was noted that the view of new roof would be partially obscured by trees. The scheme proposed to use much more sympathetic materials which would better match the character and appearance of the building.

Questions for Officers

(6)             In response to Councillor Wells the Area Planning Manager noted that the cross-section of the roof would be generally similar to the neighbouring property with a mansard roof.

(7)             In response to Councillor Bowden the Head of Development Control clarified matters in relation to the changes to the Scheme of Delegation, and noted this was not material to the consideration of the application.

(8)             In response to Councillor Jones it was confirmed that the basis of the refusal related to the suitability of mansard roof supported by guidance in the SPD for householder extensions.

(9)             In response to Councillor Littman it was clarified that whilst the original materials had been changed; policy sought to protect the original roof shape which was still intact.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(10)          Councillor Bowden stated he felt the application was appropriate, and he would not support the Officer recommendation.

(11)          Councillor Wells stated he agreed with this position and noted there had been no objections from neighbouring properties; he would not support the Officer recommendation.

(12)          Councillor Hamilton noted the rear mansard would hardly be visible, and he would not support the Officer recommendation.

(13)          The Chair stated he usually sought to defend policy, and noted that this policy had successful been defended at appeal; however, he felt the quality of the design was strong and any harm would be minimal.

(14)          A vote was taken by the 12 Members present and the Officer recommendation that planning permission be refused was not carried on a vote of 11 against and 1 abstention. Reasons were then proposed and seconded to approve the application. These reasons were then read to the Committee and it was agreed that they accurately reflected what had been put forward. A recorded vote was then taken and Councillors: Mac Cafferty, Jones, Hyde, Carden, A. Norman, Pissaridou, Hamilton, Littman, Bowden, K. Norman and Wells voted that permission be granted and Councillor Davey abstained from the vote.

55.3       RESOLVED - That the Committee has taken into consideration the recommendation, but resolves to be GRANT planning permission for the reason set out below and subject to a standard 3 years’ time condition and the submission of materials for agreement prior to commencement of development:

                    i.          The proposed development is of sympathetic design in keeping with the locality and does not cause harm to the conservation area.