Three-bedroom flat and roof terrace at Fontenoy House, Grand Parade, Portsmouth

What was proposed

The application proposed an additional floor creating a three-bedroom flat, with a roof terrace, glass balustrade and extended fire escape staircase.

“The principal aspects of the scheme for an additional floor to create a three-bedroom flat with a raised parapet wall, including the use, scale, position and materials, are the same as for application 25/00395/FUL which was permitted on 01.10.2025 under delegated powers.”

“The proposal is for an amendment to the previously permitted scheme 25/00395/FUL which was for an additional storey to provide one three-bedroom flat constructed of brickwork with cream spandrel panels and large areas of glazing in aluminium frames. The proposal is still for an additional storey to provide one 3 bed-roomed flat but with the addition of a frameless, 1.0 m high glass balustrade to form a terrace measuring 5 x 8.7m.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

Fontenoy House is a three-storey block of eight flats in Old Portsmouth, within a conservation area and near listed buildings and a scheduled monument.

“The application site is a residential apartment block known as Fontenoy House, a three- storey brick building containing 8 flats located in a prominent position on the south- western side of the junction of High Street and Grand Parade in Old Portsmouth.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

A similar additional-floor scheme was permitted in October 2025, while earlier applications included permissions, refusals and dismissed or allowed appeals.

“25/00395/FUL Construction of an additional floor to create a 3-bed flat, raising of parapet wall and installation of balustrades and extension to fire escape Permitted 01.10.2025”

“24/01008/FUL Construction of additional floor to create 3-bed flat; raising of parapet wall; installation of balustrading and extension to existing fire escape) Permitted 28.10.2024”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended conditional permission, finding the proposal acceptable in principle and concluding that the terrace would comply with planning policies.

“Aside from the NPPF, the principle of an additional storey at this site has also been established through the series of planning permissions set out in section 4. In all respects apart from the addition of a glass balustrade to create a roof terrace and extension of the fire escape the proposal is identical to the development permitted by 25/00395/FUL less than a year ago.”

“There are a number of other roof terraces in the immediate vicinity and throughout the Old Portsmouth Conservation Area at a similar height which are enclosed by a glass balustrades or railings.”

Officer report

Heritage and neighbours

Officers considered the set-back glass balustrade would have negligible heritage impact and would not cause significant overlooking or noise harm.

“The new NPPF has moderately revised its policies with respect to heritage assets. Policy HE5 requires the decision-maker to determine if the development proposal would have a positive effect, no effect, or cause harm, to the significance of the heritage asset(s). If the proposal is deemed to cause harm, the degree of that harm shall be weighed against any public benefits resulting from the proposal.”

“Views into and out of the Listed Buildings and the Scheduled Monument contribute to their settings. Views out are seen in the context of the other built form around the application site and having regard to the other roof terraces which can be seen in those views and the extant permission for the additional storey and the set back of the glass balustrade, the effect of the amended form of the proposal is considered to be negligible when looking out from those heritage…”

Officer report

Consultation responses

No new consultations were undertaken, while earlier consultees had raised no objections subject to conditions.

“No consultations were undertaken for this application as in all respects except the roof terrace it replicates 25/00395/FUL and the consultees for that application raised no objections subject to conditions.”

“Summary of consultation responses for 25/00395/FUL: • Natural England - No objection. • Historic England - No objection • Environment Agency - No objection • Coastal Partners - No objection. • Highways - No objection, subject to condition. • Environmental health - No objection. • Ecology - No objection. • Conservation officer - No objection.”

Officer report

Who spoke

Councillor Carl Inman spoke against the application.

Members debated the terrace

Members debated whether the frameless glass balustrade was suitable for the conservation area, its visibility, materials and possible future precedent.

“The approval of the balustrade would not set a precedent for a future extra storey at the site and as previously resisted, as it was a recessed one-metre-high glass balustrade which was materially different from a full additional storey.”

“Member's Comments A member opined that the application should be refused because the proposed frameless glass balustrade was considered inappropriate in the conservation area. There was concern that there was insufficient clarity about the materials to be used and that the proposal would not enhance or preserve the conservation area.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee granted conditional planning permission and amended the swift-box condition to require consultation on suitable placement.

“Another member considered that the application overall was acceptable having noted the existing consent for the building works and that the main issue was the proposed balustrade. However, due to its set-back position and wider context, the balustrade would not have an overwhelming adverse impact on the conservation area.”

“RESOLVED that conditional planning permission be granted (with the amendment of condition 6 to include a consultation with the Swift Society or wildlife officers on the appropriate placement of the swift boxes).”

Minutes