Minutes:
A site visit had been undertaken by some members of the committee on the preceding day.
The City Development Manager's Supplementary Matters List reported on further representation:
"In addition to the 40 letters of objection within the committee report, a further three letters of representation have been received from local residents regarding the amended drawings to the northern elevation. Their concerns can be summarised as follows: a) loss of privacy b) loss of outlook c) unsympathetic to Conservation Area."
Councillor Stubbs' representation was appended to the Supplementary Matters List in which he apologised for not being able to attend the meeting and set out his comments:
"I would however like to make one key observation in respect of the 57 Eastern Parade application. The buildings along that stretch of road are very substantial, but they step downwards towards its eastern end, with the final few houses being of roughly comparable size and being of a scale consistent with the surrounding properties in Selsey Avenue, Marine Court and St.George’s Road. This is good design practice in any location and particularly so in a sensitive area. This consideration is perhaps not immediately obvious, but it is an important one and it should be the determining factor in assessing the application before you."
The following deputations were made, in summary:
i) Mr P Barker, objecting, whose points included:
· This should be treated as a new build as the building was being expanded in all directions, with major changes to its footprint and design
· The bulk of the building for the plot size, reducing privacy and outlook for neighbours
· It would be out of character with the adjacent buildings in size and the modern glass fronted design was out of keeping with the Conservation Area and did not match the existing building
· It would result in removal of a parking space and problems would be caused by the entrance in Selsey Avenue
ii) Mr P Smith, objecting, whose points included:
· Concern with the process as with so much being changed it was hard to see this as an extension when it was more like a new build
· The impact caused by the layout to Selsey Avenue
· The bulky building would impact on 3 roads being a corner property
· The gabled roof design was unlike other nearby properties
· The design for such a prominent building did not preserve or enhance the street-scene of the Conservation Area or the adjoining ones.
iii) Mr M Duck read out a deputation on behalf of his sister, the applicant, in support of the application, whose points included:
· The reasons behind the conversion of the house which had become too much for the elderly occupiers (her parents) and was in need of major maintenance and upgrading of facilities
· The previous design had been withdrawn and there would not be demolition of the existing structure
· The parking would be improved in the area with the new layout and the gate on St.George's Road was being removed.
iv) Councillor M Winnington then spoke as a ward councillor, whose points included:
· The need for a development of a property to preserve or enhance a Conservation Area, and this was detrimental to the one it was within and was on the cusp of two other Conservation Areas, being one of the most prominent buildings in Eastern Parade, being on a corner plot
· It had been evident at the site visit that this property would be much closer to the road than nearby properties
· The house could be repaired without this amount of work taking place, and this was against guidance of extensions not overpowering the original property
· It could set a precedent in the Conservation Area(s)
· He agreed with Cllr Stubbs' comments on the roofline and was concerned by the raising of the wall
Members' Questions
The access arrangements were clarified; the access was being widened. The Assistant Director of Culture & City Development reported that covenant issues and loss of view were not planning considerations although general amenity for neighbours could be considered, including loss of privacy. The classification as an extension to the existing building was also examined and it was not a new build as the existing structure was not being demolished. The possible attachment of conditions suggested by the Highways Engineer was also raised.
Members' Comments
Members were concerned about the distances to the boundaries and impact on neighbouring properties and the street-scene and roofline and the design for such a prominent site at the Seafront and within a Conservation Area, which was adjacent to other Conservation Areas.
RESOLVED that permission be refused for the following reason:
The proposed extension, due to its excessive height and bulk in a prominent corner location, would overpower the recipient building and would not respect the design and appearance of surrounding properties. The extension would therefore fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Craneswater and Eastern Parade Conservation Area, and the setting of the Seafront and Eastney Barracks Conservation Areas. The proposal is therefore contrary to the principles of good design as stated in the NPPF and Policy PCS23 of the Portsmouth Plan.