Agenda item - BH2015/02049 - 67 Falmer Road, Rottingdean, Brighton - Full Planning

Demolition of existing house and garage and erection of 9no four bedroom houses.

RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

Demolition of existing house and garage and erection of 9no four bedroom houses.

(1)             It was highlighted that the application had been the subject of a site visit prior to the meeting.

(2)             The Principal Planning Officer (Liz Arnold) introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to photographs, plans and elevational drawings; attention was also drawn to matters in the Late List. There was a boundary to the South Downs National Park close to the front boundary of the application site; permission was sought for the demolition of the existing house and garage on the site and the development of nine houses; there would be two pairs of semi-detached properties at the front and two at the rear together with a single detached property. There was no objection to the principle of demolition and redevelopment of the site, and the proposed plots were considered to be in keeping with the size of others around the site. The proposed height was considered acceptable and the setting of the national park would not be undermined. Each of the new properties had private amenity space as well as adequate living accommodation throughout. There would also be no significant adverse impact on the existing properties and the application would make efficient use of the plot. The application was recommended to be minded to grant for the reasons set out in the report.

Speaker(s) and Questions

(3)             Duncan Howie and Nigel Smith addressed the Committee on behalf of local residents in objection to the scheme. They referenced policy to highlight that this type of development should be examined in relation to the quality of space in between buildings; the proposed scheme would create noise and pollution, and the scheme would be detrimental to the neighbouring properties that would suffer a loss of sunlight and privacy. It was considered the development would damage the setting of the national park, and there would be no alternative for the residents than to use cars due to the lack of sustainable transport in the area. The design was also considered to be ‘unimaginative’. Due to traffic congestion the High Street in Rottingdean was the subject of an air quality management plan, and this development would add to this existing problems. The Council had recognised this problem, and the speakers went on to highlight some of the health risks and impact associated with the air quality issues. The Committee were asked to refuse the application.

(4)             The speakers confirmed for Councillor Miller that the design was inappropriate as most of the buildings were predominantly either two-storeys or bungalows.

(5)             In response to Councillor Wares the speakers confirmed that they were not objecting to the principle of the development, but they felt this scheme was not appropriate and did not comply with policy.

(6)             In response to Councillor Morris the speakers confirmed that the ridge height of the proposed buildings would be greater than those surrounding it.

(7)             Councillor Mears spoke in her capacity as the local Ward Councillor. She stated that there was no objection to the principle of development at the site, but this needed to be inkeeping with the area and the scheme proposed too much on the site. There were already serious parking problems around the site, and the scheme would add further stress to the parking. The land on the site dipped in one corner and there was the potential for flooding, given the history of flooding in this area, with more of the site concreted over there would be more risk of this from surface water. It was also highlighted there was a reduced bus service in the evenings; as well as a lack of infrastructure in the surrounding area. Councillor Mears highlighted that any development on the site needed to take a sensible approach to consider all these issues.

(8)             Parish Councillor Kieran Fitsall spoke in his capacity as a member of Rottingdean Parish Council; he stated that the Parish Council had considered it to be appropriate to support the objections. Like the others speakers they had no objection to the principle of development on the site; however, the height, scale and density of the scheme were all out of character with the area, and could set a precedent for other schemes in the area. The cumulative impact of development also needed to considered, and the housing need of the area would be better served by smaller houses. The stress on services and amenities was also highlighted, and the Committee were asked to consider the volume of objections against the scheme.

(9)             Mr Jon Tuner and the applicant addressed the Committee in support of the scheme and stated that the design ethos for the new homes was to be sensitive to the surrounding area. Whilst the Local Planning Authority did not have defined separation standards or distances best practise had been applied. There would be no significant adverse impact on sunlight and daylight or the national park – there was also no objection from the national park. There was a need for larger properties in the area, and this would help to free up smaller homes in the village. The design was an effective use of the plot, and would contribute towards meeting housing targets across the city.

(10)          In response to Councillor Miller the applicant explained that the ‘21 metrer’ rule applied to face to face properties. In response to a further query it was clarified that the third storey was in the form of dormer windows and there would be screening to the boundaries of the site.

Questions for Officers

(11)          In response to Councillor Miller it was explained that front facing dormers were considered acceptable in line with the SPD on dormer design; there were also similar examples in the nearby area.

(12)          In response Councillor Morris it was confirmed that the proposed buildings would be slightly higher than those around, but would be inkeeping contextually; there were bungalows to the rear, but these were not visible from Falmer Road. In relation to the acoustic fence it was clarified that the full details were set out in condition 23. The Principal Transport Officer confirmed there was detail in the head of terms to help mitigate traffic issues at the nearby junction with Court Ord Road. 

(13)          In response to Councillor Inkpin-Leissner it was stated that condition 13 requested the submission of a surface water drainage scheme. The Planning & Building Control Applications Manager also clarified that there was no policy basis to request a higher standard of measures to prevent flood risk than those set out at condition 8.

(14)          In response to Councillor C. Theobald it was explained that the site had been assessed by the County Ecologist and the proposed development was deemed unlikely to have any significant effects on ecology.

(15)          In response to Councillors Gilbey and Miller the Case Officer confirmed the impact of over-looking into the neighbouring No. 6; this was not be significant as the window in question was a rooflight.

(16)          It was confirmed for Councillor Littman that the applicant had submitted a density assessment on the day of the Committee, but Officers had not able to assess this.

(17)          In response to Councillor Morris the Senior Solicitor confirmed that informatives that pointed the applicant towards obligations under separate pieces of legislation could not be made formal conditions as they did not meet the test of being ‘necessary’.

(18)          In response to Councillor Bennett it was confirmed that permitted development rights had been removed on the site, but these would not include changes to garages as this would not considered a change of use.

(19)          Councillor Wares drew attention to an email he had received, and queried what weight should be attributed to these comments; in response the Planning & Building Control Applications Manager confirmed that all late comments were reviewed by Officers prior to the meeting including the email referred to and that did not raise any additional matters. The Senior Solicitor went on to advise that any weight given to such submissions should be based on whether they raised material planning considerations, the Committee were obliged to consider all material considerations; if they did not then a decision could be susceptible to challenge.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(20)          Councillor Miller stated that he would not be able to support the Officer recommendation; he had concerns in relation to the impact on No. 6 and the potential for over-looking. He felt the dormers were not inkeeping and agreed with the points made by the speakers that the application would be over-development of the site. He highlighted that a smaller scheme would be more appropriate.

(21)          Councillor C. Theobald stated that she did not think the scheme was bad, but it proposed too many houses on the site; especially given they were essentially three-storeys in height. She highlighted the risk of flooding at the site, and felt that the scheme needed smaller properties to the rear; for these reasons she would not support the Officer recommendation.

(22)          Councillor Hamilton stated that the proposed scheme was too much for the plot given the density of the surrounding area and he would not be able to support the Officer recommendation.

(23)          Councillor O’Quinn stated that she agreed with others in the debate and the overdevelopment of the site would have a negative impact on the surrounding area.

(24)          Councillor Littman highlighted the need to provide housing in the city, but felt that the scheme did not comply with policy and did not take account of the local characteristics.

(25)          Councillor Inkpin-Leissner noted that he agreed with others that the scheme was over-development; he also had concerns about flood risk on the site, and felt the developer could come back with a better scheme were the application refused.

(26)          The Chair stated that she was inclined to agree with colleagues in the debate and vote against the scheme.

(27)          A vote was taken and the Officer recommendation that the Committee be minded to grant permission was not carried on a vote of 11 against with 1 abstention. Councillor Littman then proposed reasons to refuse the application and these were seconded by Councillor Miller. A short recess was then held to allow the Chair, Councillor Littman, Councillor Miller, the Planning & Building Control Applications Manager, the Senior Solicitor and the Principal Planning Officer to draft the reasons in full. These reasons were then read to the Committee and it was agreed they accurately reflected those that had been put forward. A recorded vote was then taken and the Committee unanimously agreed to refuse planning permission.

106.2    RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into account the Officer recommendation and the reasons for it, but resolves to REFUSE planning permission for the reasons set out below:

Reasons

                    i.          The proposed development by reason of its design is out of keeping with the prevailing character of the area and does not emphasise its positive characteristics in terms of prevailing density, height, scale, bulk and relationship to adjoining dwellings contrary to policies QD1, QD2, QD3 and HO4 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan 2005.

                  ii.          The proposed development by reason of its height and proximity to no. 6  Court Ord Road would result in an unneighbourly development contrary to policy QD27 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan 2005.

Informative

                    i.          The applicant is advised that the Local Planning Authority would wish to see the incorporation of flood risk measures into any subsequent scheme.