An appeal has been lodged after councillors rejected plans for a first-floor extension to a modern house near Preston Park.
Rory Aitkenhead, 38, wants to fit solar panels on the roof and extend the first floor of the modern stepped building that he and his family have lived in since 2022.
But in May, the 10 members of Brighton and Hove City Council’s Planning Committee held a tied vote, with five votes for and against the scheme.
It was turned down on the casting vote of the chair, Labour councillor Liz Loughran, who also represents Preston Park ward.
The proposal was thrown out even though a report recommended granting planning permission to extend 34B Preston Park Avenue, a modern building behind number 34, a former care home.
The reasons for refusal were that the plans submitted by Mr Aitkenhead, who works as an architect, were not a high-quality design and would cause harm to the Preston Park Conservation Area.
Councillors also cited the proposal’s “inappropriate height and massing”, creating an “overbearing development”, and so contrary to various council planning policies.
Seven objections from neighbours were sent to the council plus one from Green councillor Kerry Pickett who also represents Preston Park ward and who addressed the Planning Committee meeting in May.
In his appeal documents, Mr Aitkenhead said that he believed that the application complied with all relevant council planning policies.
He said that he was initially told that no objectors would be speaking at the Planning Committee meeting but that changed when he was given 30 minutes’ notice of Councillor Pickett’s representation.
In his appeal documents, he said that the deciding vote was cast by a Preston Park ward councillor.
Last year, the council turned down Mr Aitkenhead’s previous application for a first-floor extension and an accessible roof terrace because of the scale and design.
The most recent application was rejected even though Mr Aitkenhead said that he had addressed the reasons for the previous refusal.
The latest application was amended in response to suggestions from planning officers, leading Mr Aitkenhead to expect that it would be voted through.
Mr Aitkenhead said: “The decision made by the committee is against the conservation officer and planning officer recommendations with no substantiated reasoning.
“We believe this is a predominate reason for the application of associated costs related to this appeal submission.
“We also believe that the extremely late notice to attend the committee hearing is also unacceptable.”
To see the appeal application, search for BH2024/00077 in the planning portal on the council’s website or search for 3348811 on the Planning Inspectorate’s website.
Yes in the face of the drive for net zero and all that nonsense turning down energy efficient building projects with solar panels should be discouraged. At some point people will have to realise that the housing stock of Brighton cannot ever become energy efficient enough to meet standards expected these days. Essentially most buildings need demolition and rebuilding!
Potent point when you consider things like listed buildings that just by core design, cannot be energy efficient, or will require huge costs to get close.
There is also inappropriate building materials being used in the push towards ‘sustainable’ buildings.
As flooding becomes more commonplace, houses that get flooded need serious work to get them back, but building timber frame and SIPS on low ground that might get flooded would necessitate total demolition. That isn’t sustainable, yet I see a lot of such proposals by architect’s that simply don’t care, or don’t understand. It isn’t good.
Yes in the face of the drive for net zero and all that nonsense turning down energy efficient building projects with solar panels should be discouraged. At some point people will have to realise that the housing stock of Brighton cannot ever become energy efficient enough to meet standards expected these days. Essentially most buildings need demolition and rebuilding!
It isn’t a good look for Rory Aitkenhead, being an architect. Such damning comments:
“.. not a high-quality design and would cause harm to the Preston Park Conservation Area.
“inappropriate height and massing”, creating an “overbearing development”, and so contrary to various council planning policies. ”
At least this is his own home and not a client taking a significant loss, wasting money on fees for designs so wide of the mark.
Surely the role of an architect is to have knowledge of what is likely to gain approval and what isn’t? Most applications end up with some bargaining of the details and these are often anticipated and expanse intentionally added with the full expectation of offering a sacrifice, but this seems to be way more fundamentally wrong than normal process.
Embarrassing. Embarrassing for the firm he works with too, I should think. Not a good look.
But according to the article, the professional actors in this particular play (ie the planning and conservation officers), did not think the design was poor. They were in favour of the scheme. It would appear that the application has been turned down for political reasons. You are correct insofar as it is not a very good look at all… on the part of the planning committee members!
Planning officers make the recommendation but it is up to Councillors on the committee to make the decsion.
I’ve seen councillors reject a recommendationt to approve and I’ve also seen Councillors apprrove an application that the officers said should be denied.
An architect should be familar with how planinng committees work and an offer recommendation is just that.
What particilar political factors do you think are in play on this application?
Probably a connection between a local property resident and one of the council members – it happens frequently and should be further investigated. This shouldn’t be happening in Brighton.
Absolutely – from my analysis, you’re correct Atticus. It sounds as though there’s potential corruption within the council..
You’re missing the point here. It’s suggesting there may be corruption within the Council. Probably a connection between a local property resident and one of the council members. This shouldn’t be happening in Brighton or any democracy.
You are only quoting nimby councillors who have zero knowledge of architecture. Its only embarrassing for you. Especially after it was granted after an appeal.
Most decisions are made without being referred to the planning committee. The problem with planning committees is that they are made up from councillors, many of whom think that receiving a couple of thousand votes in a local election makes them experts on anything and everything. Frequently they ignore the advice of qualified planning officers in the hope of securing a few local votes from ‘nimby’ residents. PCs can often arrive at poor decisions through being ill informed and lacking in measure and objectivity.
I am familiar with this experienced and talented architect and the quality of his work. It just doesn’t add up.
Before making uninformed judgements about an architects expertise ( Miles Monty) planning procedures should be given rather more scrutiny.
Surely it is the responsibility of the planning committee to bake their lead from the professional planning officers.
In this case it suggests nimbyism and relationships between councillors and residents. A complete lack of integrity and objectivity with a 30 minute notice period completely unacceptable.