Agenda item - BH2015/01745 - 107 Marine Drive, Rottingdean, Brighton - Full Planning

Demolition of existing dwelling and outbuildings and erection of a three storey building with additional lower ground floor entrance to provide 7no flats and erection of 2no semi-detached houses accessed from Chailey Avenue with associated landscaping, parking, cycle and bin storage.

RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

              Demolition of existing dwelling and outbuildings and erection of a three storey building with additional lower ground floor entrance to provide 7no flats and erection of 2no semi-detached houses accessed from Chailey Avenue with associated landscaping, parking, cycle and bin storage.

(1)             The Planning Manager, Applications, Nicola Hurley, introduced the scheme gave a presentation by reference to plans, site plans, elevational drawings and photographs showing views across the site and in relation to neighbouring properties. During the process of the application amendments had been made to the scheme, these had included reduction of the width of the proposed building fronting onto Marine Drive, alterations to materials to the building and the boundary treatment and alterations to the proposed entry gate.

(2)          The main considerations in determining this application related to the principle of the development, the impact of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, impact on the living conditions of neighbouring properties, the standard of accommodation proposed impact on the local highway network and sustainability issues. It had been concluded that the proposed development would make efficient and effective use of the site. The height, design and bulk of the proposed buildings would relate well to that of the other properties within the vicinity of the site and would not compromise the quality of the local environment. The standard of accommodation to be provided was considered acceptable and adequate private useable amenity space would be provided. Subject to compliance with the proposed conditions the scheme would comply with the requirements for sustainability, parking standards and refuse and recycling storage In addition it was deemed that the development would not have a significant adverse impact upon the amenities of neighbouring properties and minded to grant approval was therefore recommended.

              Speakers and Questions

(3)          Mrs Dunkling spoke as a neighbouring objector setting out her objections to the scheme. Mrs Dunkling explained that she had recently been notified regarding the need to complete a party wall negotiation. Prior notification of this had not been received although it was alleged that it had. The proposed development would have a devastating and detrimental impact on her amenity and privacy as she would be totally overlooked.

(4)          Mr Lap Chan spoke on behalf of the applicants in support of their application. He explained that the scheme had been developed following detailed discussions and proposed only one more unit than the scheme for which there was an extant permission. Amendments had been made to the scheme as originally submitted in order to address concerns raised.

              Questions for Officers

(5)          Councillor Barradell sought confirmation of the location of the entrance to the objectors house in relation to the side elevations to the development and explained that the configuration of the site in relation to the property at 109 was unclear to her.

(6)          Councillor Littman also sought clarification of the manner in which the units would be configured across the site and the precise differences between the application as currently submitted and that for which there was an extant permission, as did Councillor Mac Cafferty.

(7)          Councillor Wares requested to see further elevational drawings showing the relationship between the site and the neighbouring plots.

(8)          Councillor Morris stated that he was confused and unclear in respect of the relationship between the three neighbouring plots. especially, that between the application site and 109a Marine Drive.

(9)          Councillor C Theobald enquired whether a sunlight/daylight survey to assess the impact of the proposed form of development on its neighbours had been undertaken. It was confirmed that this had not been considered necessary.

(10)       Councillor Bennett proposed that further consideration of the application be deferred in order to enable a site visit to take place prior to the application being determined. This was seconded by Councillor C Theobald.

(11)       A vote was taken and on a vote of 7 with 5 abstentions it was agreed that the application would be deferred pending a site visit.

118.4    RESOLVED - That for the reasons set out above consideration of this application be deferred in order to enable a site visit to take place prior to the application being determined.

              Note: It was noted that as the decision to defer determination of the application had been made after the objector and the Applicants representative had spoken that in accordance with the agreed protocol no further public speaking would be permitted in respect of this application.