Roof staircase and amenity deck at 12 Ardavon, Holywood

What was proposed

The application sought a painted steel spiral staircase, walkway and roof deck for maintenance and amenity access from the second-floor apartment.

“DEA: Holywood & Clandeboye Proposal: Installation of painted steel external spiral staircase for access to roof over 2 nd floor apartment for maintenance and amenity access. Location: Ardavon, Holywood…”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site was a three-storey apartment building in a private residential development, with townhouses and a detached dwelling nearby.

“The application site is located at 12 Ardavon, consisting of a large three-storey apartment building off the Glen Road, within the settlement of Holywood. The building has largely traditional finishes, in light-coloured blockwork with intricate detailing, though it is noted that the penthouse apartment consists of a more modern-styled flat- roofed, slate-clad aspect which is inset from the main external walls of the building.”

“The application building is set within a private residential development, with two-storey townhouses to its west and a detached dwelling to its northeast. The development has strong boundaries to the Glen Road, consisting of dense, mature trees (with it noted that the application building sits approx. 38m away from Glen Road).”

Officer report

Why officers recommended refusal

Officers considered the staircase and walkway obtrusive, incongruous and damaging to the building’s character, while existing amenity space was already adequate.

“While design can be subjective and the SPPS2 does advise that Planning Authorities should not attempt to impose a particular architectural taste or style arbitrarily, it is unquestionable that the proposal is not in keeping at all with the character and appearance of the host building.”

“The spiral design of the staircase is purely functional and is not sympathetic to the largely traditional character of the host building. It sits out approx. 2m from the edge of the penthouse (measured from the centre point of the staircase), at the edge of the existing narrow terrace, on a prominent elevation when entering the Ardavon…”

Officer report

Consultation and objections

Thirteen objections from twelve addresses raised concerns about appearance, clutter, overlooking, safety and alternative access, while heritage consultees were content.

“As of writing, thirteen letters of objection have been received, from twelve separate addresses. Their main concerns are as follows:”

“The proposed staircase is prominent and not in-keeping with the character of the host building / surrounding area • The glazing to the walkway / deck would result in additional visual clutter • Overlooking concerns • Presence of outdoor furniture, plant pots, etc on the proposed deck would further add to visual clutter and detract from the appearance of the host building • Safety concerns • The developer has neglected other parts of the development, such as roads • If…”

Officer report

What was said in support

The supporting speaker said the staircase was needed for safe, frequent maintenance and amenity access, and argued that privacy impacts were limited.

The committee debate

Members differed over whether practical maintenance and safety needs outweighed the staircase’s prominent and inappropriate appearance.

“Councillor Morgan agreed with the Planning Department’s reasons for its opinion to refuse and felt that the design was strange and inappropriate for that building. She believed that there were other ways to access the roof for maintenance requirements. Alderman Smith accepted there was a need for access but had concerns about the prominence of the staircase, particularly from the northeast and southwest perspectives.”

“He accepted that until now there had not been a need for frequent service of the solar panels and the air conditioning unit and he felt a ladder was not the safest way to access those on a regular basis. He suspected that scaffolding might be required and that would be unsightly. While the proposed structure was unusual, he accepted that the staircase was needed for practical reasons.”

Minutes

The vote and decision

Members adopted the refusal recommendation by eight votes to three, with two abstentions, and planning permission was refused.

“RESOLVED, on the proposal of Councillor Morgan, seconded by Alderman Smith, that the recommendation be adopted and that planning permission be refused. 4.2”

Minutes