Erection of external fire escape stairs and access from loft floor to ground level at side and rear elevations

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 31 March 2021 by D Cramond BSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 22 April 2021 Appeal Ref: APP/Q1445/D/21/3268060 263 Old Shoreham Road, Portslade, Brighton, BN41 1XS • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr Mikeal Alzokm against the decision of Brighton & Hove City Council. • The application Ref BH2020/02913, dated 13 October 2020, was refused by notice dated 8 December 2020. • The development proposed is the erection of external fire escape stairs and access from loft floor to ground level at side and rear elevations. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues are the effect of the proposal on the: • character and appearance of the host property and the locality; and • living conditions for neighbours. Reasons Character and appearance 3. The appeal property is an unremarkable semi-detached two storey dwelling with approval for some accommodation in the roof. It is set back a little off a busy main road and lies in a row of similar properties which contribute to suburban character of relatively uniform and pleasing appearance. The appeal scheme is as described above. The stair would run from a high central point in the side gable towards the rear and have two landings. The exit to the stair would seemingly be via a side window in the loft living area. The Appellant explains that it is for the sole purpose of fire escape in emergencies. 4. Whilst accepting the Appellant’s point that from certain angles the stair would be hardly or not at all perceptible I cannot ignore the fact that from others it would be visible. Furthermore, the scene would be a discordant one. This functional, far from subtle, high level staircase would be a complete anomaly on a ‘traditional’ two storey home. It would be seen as a strange and unnecessary, Appeal Decision APP/Q1445/D/21/3268060 2 inappropriate and ungainly, attachment emerging from a high central point in the gable and running for considerable distance. The appearance of the building would be harmed and the quality of the streetscene would diminish. In summary the appeal scheme would not represent good quality design. 5. Brighton & Hove Local Plan Saved Policy QD14 is pertinent. It seeks well designed development to protect immediate and wider character and visual quality. I conclude that the proposal would conflict with this policy. Living conditions 6. The Council is concerned about the impact of the proposal on amenity enjoyed by residents of adjoining No 261 Old Shoreham Road. The case is made that there would be an external source of activity with noise nuisance and movements at an elevated level and this would be in close proximity to this neighbouring property which has a number of first-floor windows. This seems to me to be a concern without any justification on the basis of the appeal proposal. Any use of this emergency stair would be at most on highly intermittent occasions. Fire will hardly be a regular occurrence. 7. Brighton & Hove Local Plan Saved Policy QD27 is relevant. Amongst other matters it seeks to ensure that new development would protect and provide good standards of residential amenity in all its guises. Given the foregoing I would conclude that the appeal scheme would not conflict with this policy. Other matters 8. I appreciate the way in which the Appellant has varied the scheme over time from a door entrance to a more ‘restrictive’ window arrangement and that there is no intent for use as separate living accommodation. I understand the Appellant’s wish to provide for safety of occupants in the event of a fire. Clearly any second floor accommodation does need to be carefully considered in this regard. However countless loft conversions are in place locally and beyond and the vast majority of these do not rely upon external staircases and they are not necessary to meet building regulations and provide a reasonable degree of safety for occupants. I have carefully considered all the points raised by the Appellant but these matters do not outweigh the concerns which I have in relation to one of the main issues identified above. 9. I confirm that policies in the National Planning Policy Framework have been considered and the development plan policies which I cite mirror relevant objectives within that document. Overall conclusion 10.For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal proposal would not unduly impact upon living conditions for neighbours but it would have unacceptable effects on the character and appearance of the locality. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. D Cramond INSPECTOR