Agenda item - BH2018/00294, 33 Oriental Place, Brighton - Full Planning

Internal and external alterations incorporating new mansard roof to create additional floor with associated alterations to layout and other works.

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE

Ward Affected: Regency

Internal and external alterations incorporating new mansard roof to create additional floor with associated alterations to layout and other works

(1)          Councillor Cattell left the room during consideration of items 121E and 121F and Councillor Gilbey chaired the meeting.

Officer Introduction

(2)          The Principal Planning Officer, Stewart Glassar, gave a presentation introduced the application and the accompanying  listed building application BH2018/00295 by reference to plans, elevational drawings, photographs and floor plans.

(3)          The main considerations of the applications relate to the impact of the proposed development on the appearance and character of the grade II listed building and the wider conservation area, and the impacts on the residential amenity of neighbouring properties. Previous applications to extend to the roof of the property to create additional accommodation had been refused on the grounds that they would harm the significance of the heritage site. One of the schemes went to appeal and was dismissed. The current applications had been altered from previous applications by including an ‘M’ shaped roof which matched the original roof shape. The applications were similar to the roof extensions on neighbouring properties but this was not considered to set a precedent to allow for further inappropriate extensions.

(4)          The financial considerations and offer to reinstate balconies on the neighbouring building were dismissed by the Planning Officer as they were not relevant to the Committee’s considerations. The potential harm to the listed building from converting it to other uses which had been raised by the applicant was also questioned as a similar property on the same road had been successfully converted into residential use following a previously  unsuccessful planning application.

Public Speakers

(5)          Councillor Phillips spoke in favour of the application. The building was used as a backpackers’ hostel which provided an important service for the city allowing people travelling to stay in the centre. Councillor Phillips stated that the streetscene was a bit higgledy-piggledy with a variety of roof types. The application would have improved this as the new roof was to be built to match the style and height of the two neighbouring buildings.

(6)          Councillor Morris asked if the extension would replace the existing roof. Councillor Morris also stated that his understanding was that the type of mansard roof in the scheme was deemed unacceptable and that the two existing ones on either side of number 33 predated the listed building status which is why they were allowed to remain.

(7)          Councillor Phillips responded that it would plug the ugly gap which would be seen in the pictures of the building. She also stated that while the other mansard roofs had been in place for some time they were still modern to the original buildings.

(8)          Ms Lucraft, the applicant, spoke in favour of the application. The hostel had traded for over 30 years and had been a lodging house since the 1850s and provided a very important service to this city. The previous owner had underinvested in the facilities and the applicant had made improvements but estimated she would need to invest a further £150,000. Costs had increased and business rates had risen from £4000 to £44,000 per annum. In order to remain a viable business the hostel would need to increase its capacity. The proposed roof would match the ones on either side and would fill in a gap in the streetscene which currently existed. The mansard on the roof of the neighbouring buildings had been in place since the 1850s and so was part of the historic features of the street. Surveys of the roof commissioned following the previous refused application have shown that the current roof was non-original having been entirely replaced through the buildings’ life.

(9)          In response to Councillor Miller; Ms Lucraft stated that if the scheme was granted permission the façade would be restored at the same time as the roof.

(10)       In response to Councillor Morris, the Legal Adviser stated that the financial implications of the  scheme could only be considered by the Committee when potential revenue would be enabling development. This was not the case with this application.

(11)       In response to Councillor Moonan, Ms Lucraft confirmed that in the course of development both the balconies of both number 33 and 35 would be restored to their original appearance.

(12)       Councillor Mac Cafferty ask what discussions had taken place between Ms Lucraft and the Local Authority before putting in this application as the advice seemed to be that developing historical roofs was a very difficult thing to do.

(13)       Ms Lucraft responded that there had been multiple applications since 2013 which had been altered to meet the requirements of the Local Authority. The hostel needed to expand to remain viable and creating more space in the roof was the only option.

Questions to the Planning Officer

(14)       Councillor Theobald asked the Planning Officer to clarify the position around restoring the balconies of 33 and 35 Oriental Place in relation to the application.

(15)       The Planning Officer responded that the Committee should not take the offer of restoring the balconies into account as the work would be required with or without permission being granted as the buildings were listed.

(16)       In response to Councillor Moonan, the Planning Officer stated that it was difficult to pre- judge the effect of the Committee’s decision on other applications on the road but it would certainly be cited if applications for mansard roofs on other buildings were refused. If the Committee were minded to limit the precedent by focusing on filling the gaps between the existing mansard roofs they would have to be mindful of the Planning Inspector’s comments dismissing this justification following the applicant’s appeal for a previous scheme.

(17)       In response to Councillor Platts, the Planning Officer stated that while he acknowledged the applicant had worked to alter the design of the mansard roof these changes did not address the fundamental issue which was with the structure as a whole.

(18)       The representative from the Conservation Advisory Group stated that the two sides of the street were virtually symmetrical and there were no mansards on the east side of the street. There had been no additions since 1952.

(19)       Councillor Platts asked if the Planning Officer could confirm when the two neighbouring mansard roofs had been constructed and if they predated the listing were they included as part of the listed feature.

(20)       The Planning Officer stated that it was hard to determine exactly when the extensions had been constructed but it appeared that the one on number 35 had been there since at least the 1860s. He stated that they were not entirely successful additions and the two existing mansard roofs did not match so any addition in the middle would not be able to unify all three roofs.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(21)       Councillor Hyde stated that the most pertinent issue was that the building was Grade II* Listed and the scheme would create three ugly buildings rather than a unified block.

(22)       Councillor Theobald stated that she agreed with Councillor Hyde and would be supporting the officer recommendation. There were strong objections from heritage officers and the Conservation Advisory Group, it would go against planning policy to grant permission and it would set a harmful precedent.

(23)       Councillor Mac Cafferty stated that he understood that the rate review had placed the applicant in a difficult position but that was immaterial to the Committee’s decision. National legislation placed a lot of importance on the roofs of listed buildings. He stated that buildings were not listed without thought and they needed to be cared for and passed on to future generations.

(24)       Councillor Moonan stated that she had a certain amount of sympathy for the applicant’s argument that the scheme would fill the gap between the two existing rood but the risk of setting a precedent was too great to be able to go against officer recommendations.

(25)       Councillor Morris stated that he agreed with other members of the Committee that the precedent set would be damaging for the city if permission was granted.

(26)       Councillor Miller stated that he did not support the officer recommendation as he felt filling in the gap between the two existing mansard roofs would create an element of uniformity which did not exist. He felt that the nature of the scheme being an infill meant that the scheme would only create a limited precedent. The terrace was already not uniform and mansard roofs had been a feature of the road since at least the 1850s.

(27)       Councillor Bennett stated that she would not be supporting the officer recommendation and agreed with Councillor Miller about the limited precedent and the benefit from having a uniform appearance.

(28)       Councillor Littman stated that he had initially planned to vote against the officer recommendations on the grounds that the scheme was an infill but had decided that the risk of creating a precedent for similar developments was too great.

(29)       Councillor Platts stated that she felt that the benefit from filling in the gap had been understated in the report but accepted the comments about the dangers of setting a precedent and would be supporting the recommendations.

(30)       The Chair stated that she too was concerned about the potential precedent and would be supporting the recommendations.

(31)       A vote was taken and on a vote of 8 For, 2 Against and 0 Abstentions planning permission was refused.

121E.1RESOLVED - 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 set out in the report.