Agenda item

            (Councillor McDonough-Brown, who had declared an interest in this application, withdrew from the table whilst it was under discussion and took no part in the debate or decision-making process.)

(Councillor Bunting had left the room whilst the item was under consideration.)

The case officer informed the Committee that, after the agenda had been published, the following points of objection had been received from the Ulster Architectural Heritage Society:

·        First floor front extension above the garage was not subordinate to the main building.  The proposed extension was in conflict with the ‘Design and Development Guidance’ set out in the Design Guide 5.2.32 ‘an extension should be subordinate to the main building in terms of form and massing’;

·        In addition, Section 5.2.47 of the guide stated that ‘it would not be appropriate to add another storey to an original single storey attached garage at an Inter War residence’; 

·        The proposed extension failed to meet the Design Guide’s criteria, and would greatly impact the massing of the building frontage where no such precedent was evident in the Broomhill locale, either for front elevation extensions or first floor extensions above garages; 

·        The roof profile and roof silhouette both at the front and rear were also subject to alteration with the proposed extensions where the Design Guide clearly stated in Section 5.2.14 that ‘original roof profiles should be retained.’;

·        The proposed alterations to the rear of the property, particularly the insertion of dormers on the roof to the rear would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the conservation area (PPS 6 Section 7.8).  The choice of materials was not sympathetic to the character and style of the Inter War period property;

·        Regarding the proposed sunroom to the rear of the building, UAHS did not feel that this addition if considered alone was to the detriment of the building, however, when viewed alongside the proposed dormers and small rear extensions to the rear the character of the building would undoubtedly be comprised;

·        The proposal was not appropriate in the context of Malone Conservation Area and was in conflict with Article 50 (5) of the Planning (NI) Order 1991 which required that ‘where any area for the time being designated as a conservation area special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing its character of appearance.’

            The case officer outlined the response of the Planning Department to the aforementioned issues raised, as set out in the Late Items Report Pack. 

The Committee received representation from Councillor Craig who outlined a range of objections to the case officer’s recommendation for approval. He suggested that the conservation area should be maintained and the proposal did not fit the design criteria. He also suggested that there was the potential for the Planning Department to reconsider and change the recommendation to refusal and that a site visit would be beneficial.

The Committee received a representation from Mr. B. Johnston in objection to the application. He suggested that the proposal was in breach of Malone Conservation Area Guidelines, the gable wall would alter the three dimensional form of the building, destroy the form and symmetry of the building and would have a detrimental affect on the neighbouring property. He suggested that there would be loss of light, loss of amenity, and that the proposal was contrary to PPS 7. He suggested that the extension was obtrusive, dominant and an encroachment of space.

During points of clarification, the case officer confirmed that an angle test had been carried out as part of the assessment of the application and Mr. Johnston confirmed that access to his property had not been requested by the Planning Department.

The Committee received representation from Mr. D. Maxwell, representing the applicant. He outlined his support for the proposal and suggested how it complied with the Malone Conservation Area Guidelines. In relation to the objector’s comments, he pointed out that revised drawings had been submitted regarding the front extension, which had now been pushed back beyond the front façade so that the extension was subordinate to the main building.  He suggested that the proposed materials would match the main house and that the design of the roof dormer had also been scaled down.  He suggested that the design was in character with the area, subordinate to the main building, and consistent with all policies and design guides.  

During points of clarification, the case officer advised that, on balance, given the size of the proposal and the existing separation distances between the properties, it was considered that the proposal would not cause unacceptable impact to the surrounding amenities. The conservation officer advised that, as there was a built form already in existence above the garage, the marginal increase proposed did not compromise the objective of the conservation area guidance.

            Proposal

            Moved by Councillor Carson, and

            Seconded by Councillor Garrett,

      That the Committee agrees to grant approval to the application, subject to the imposing of the conditions set out in the case officer’s report.

            On a vote by show of hands five Members voted for the proposal and seven against and it was declared lost.

Further Proposal

            Moved by Councillor Hussey, and

            Seconded by Councillor Dorrian,

      That the Committee, given the issues which had been raised regarding the first floor front extension not complying with the Malone Conservation Area Guidelines, agrees to defer consideration of the application to enable potential reasons for refusal to be outlined for consideration in an amended report at the next meeting.

On a vote by show of hands six Members voted for the proposal and five against and it was declared carried.

(Councillor McDonough-Brown returned to the Committee table at this point.)