Agenda item - BH2014/03394 - Land adjacent 6 Falmer Avenue Saltdean Brighton - Full Planning

Demolitionof exitinghouse and stablesand constructionof 32no. dwellings comprisingof 4two bedroomflatsand 28twostorey two, threeandfour beddwellings incorporatingopenspaceand landscapingworks, parkingand creationof access roadfromFalmer Avenuewithotherassociated works. Creationof newpedestrian link betweenFalmerAvenueand SouthDowns Footpath.

RECOMMNEDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

Demolition of existing house and stables and construction of 32 no. dwellings comprising of 4 two bedroom flats and 28 two storey two, three and four bed dwellings incorporating open space and landscaping works, parking and creation of access road from Falmer Avenue with other associated works. Creation of new pedestrian link between Falmer Avenue and South Downs Footpath.

1)               The Committee noted that this application had been the subject of site visit prior to the meeting.

Officer Presentation

2)               The Principal Planning Officer, Liz Arnold, gave a presentation with reference to plans, photographs and elevational drawings. Attention was also drawn to matters on the Late List and verbal update was given in respect of amending the proposed heads of terms to include Saltdean Lido in the sports contribution. The site related to an existing detached house on Falmer Avenue and an associated large paddock and stable block to the rear of 1.36 hectares. The site sloped downwards north to south and east to west, and immediately to the south was the built up area of Saltdean and there was an existing bridleway along the western edge of the site. Planning permission was sought for the demolition of the detached dwelling and construction of four flats and 32 houses to be a mixture of two, three and four bedroom units. The site would have 40% affordable housing and the two ground floor flats would be wheelchair accessible units.

3)               In terms of the policy context the Local Planning Authority had been asked to reduce the shortfall in the housing supply by considering sites on the urban fringe. In terms of the urban fringe assessment the site had been identified as having the scope and provision for housing based on a high level assessment – half of the site had been assessed as suitable for 12 dwellings and the proposed density of the development was considered appropriate for this location.

4)               The site abutted the South Downs National Park, and the design of the properties – two-storeys with a flat roof – allowed for a reduction in height and was considered to pick up on similar art-deco style buildings in the wider Saltdean area. The proposed buildings would be finished in white render, with aluminium door and window frames. A landscape visual impact assessment had been undertaken and it was considered the site would not have a significant impact on the wider Saltdean settlement form. The height of the proposed dwellings would help reduce the impact on the skyline. Whilst there would be some infilling from some points this was not considered to significantly harm views into the national park.

5)               Revisions to the scheme now retained enough undeveloped land to create a buffer to the national park and it was considered that this would help to enhance the rural-urban interface at this location in the long-term. The impact of amenity was considered in the report, whilst the properties abutting the site would lose their views into the national park this was not a material planning consideration. In relation to the new access road to the site an acoustic report had been submitted which identified that no acoustic measures were required and the proposed provision of landscaping would help to reduce the noise. A Construction Environmental Management Plan was required as part of the s106 to protect neighbouring properties. The application was recommended to be minded to grant for the reasons set out in the report.

Public Speaker(s) and Questions

6)               Lisa Forrest spoke in objection to the scheme of behalf of local residents. She stated that her representation was on behalf of over 4000 residents that opposed the scheme and other objectors included the South Downs National Park Authority and Natural England England. The site directly abutted the national park on two sides and had previous been part of the Area of Outstanding National Beauty. Development of the site would merge the settlements of Rottingdean and Saltdean creating urban sprawl and there was a risk of flooding on the site. Vehicular access to Falmer Avenue was dangerous in snowy and icy conditions; local buses only serviced the area hourly. The uniformity of the proposed design was uncharacteristic of the area and would overshadow due to the proximity of the buildings and the gradient of the site. Concerns were expressed in relation to air quality in Rottingdean High Street and the impact on local amenities. In summary Ms Forrest highlighted that the location was unsuitable; the access would be insufficient; the design was not in-keeping with the local area; it would create a loss of privacy and there were insufficient schools places locally. The Committee were urged to refuse the application.

7)               Mr John Bryant addressed the Committee in his capacity as a Rottingdean Parish Councillor. He stated that the Parish Council objected to the scheme and the emerging neighbourhood plan for Rottingdean, supported by the majority of residents, sought to safeguard against development of urban fringe sites. It was highlighted that the site abutted the national park and the local nature reserve and was currently a green space. The modern design was not considered to be in-keeping with the surrounding areas, and the urban fringe study had only identified the potential for 12 dwellings on half of the site and the scheme proposed 32 across the whole site. Concern was raised in relation to the impact of traffic and air quality on Rottingdean High Street and it was considered that this made it contrary to NPPF. It was argued that the application should be accompanied by a full transport assessment; the potential of flooding on the site was also highlighted. The Committee were invited to refuse the application.

8)               Councillor Mears spoke in opposition to the scheme as one of the Local Ward Councillors. She highlighted the inappropriate nature of the design and the negative impact this would have on the skyline in Saltdean and also made note of the potential risk of flooding at the site. Mention was made of the comments from the Education Officer in relation to the number of schools places and it was noted that the local school also served East Saltdean that was under the East Sussex County Council Local Education Authority. There was inadequate services and infrastructure in the area and it was felt that to grant the application would depart from local policies in relation to sustainable transport. Development of the site would add to the existing transport problems on the A259 and increase traffic within Saltdean. Concern was raised about access to the site for service and emergency vehicles, and attention was drawn to the comments in the urban fringe assessment. The Committee were asked to refuse the application.

9)               Mr Shaw addressed the Committee on behalf of the applicant. He highlighted the amount of work that had gone into the application and noted that the design of the scheme had been the subject of extensive consultation and amended to take on board local concerns. During the life of the application the number of units had been reduced and the majority would be family homes. The level of local concern was recognised, but it was also highlighted that much of this was in objection to the principle of any development on the site. It was highlighted that the local authority did not have a five year supply of land as required by Central Government. The level of affordable housing on the site was highlighted as well as the provision of family homes. The proposed development did not break the skyline and would not harm views into the national park – instead the development would create a buffer. The design was supported by the County Architect and there was no impact in terms of overlooking or noise. The application had the potential to improve biodiversity and any impact on the local infrastructure would be mitigated through the s106 agreement.

Questions for Officers

10)            In response to Councillor C. Theobald the width of the new access road was confirmed and it was added that this was considered more than sufficient for access by service and emergency vehicles. In response to further questions it was explained that flood risk had been assessed and, subject to compliance with recommended conditions, no concerns had been raised.

11)            In response to Councillor Littman it was explained that half of the site had been assessed in the urban fringe assessment on the criteria identified. The findings of that study were subject to further work through the City Plan or a detailed planning application and the County Architect had raised no objection to development of the whole site.

12)            In response to Councillor Barradell it was explained that the design and proposed materials had been assessed by the in-house Design Panel, and there was a condition requiring materials to be submitted as part of the permission. The Planning & Building Control Applications Manager added that no objection had been raised to the use of render in this location, though Officers were aware of concerns that had been raised of the use in more exposed locations. The agreement of materials would be a delegated matter in consultation with the Chair, Deputy Chair and Opposition Spokespersons.

13)            In response to Councillor Wares the locations of the some of the other art-deco style properties in the Saltdean area were highlighted on a map – though it was noted this was not an exhaustive list. In relation to air quality it was noted that no objection had been raised and any impact would be negligible. The Senior Lawyer added that the Case Officer had relied upon the advice of the Council’s specialist officer when making the recommendation.

14)            In response to Councillor Gilbey it was explained there was no guidance on acceptable distances between proposed developments and the national park. In response to a further query it was clarified that the Rottingdean Neighbourhood Plan was an emerging document which had not been through any statutory stages.

15)            In response to Councillor Mac Cafferty it was explained that Officers had looked extensively at the available housing provision on brownfield sites; the failure to meet the housing needs across such sites had led the Inspector to require the authority to undertake the urban fringe assessment.

Debate and Decision Making Process

16)            Councillor C. Theobald stated that she did not like the design and it was not in-keeping with the wider area. She felt the site should be protected as ‘downland’. She added that if the development received permission then funds for the s106 should be used for Saltdean Lido. She added that the scheme proposed too many units for the site and she had concerns in relation to flood risk and school places.

17)            Councillor Barradell stated that she was in two minds in relation to the application; whilst the application site was not in the national park she felt that to grant the scheme would go against local policy. She stated that her main concerns related to the design and the materials.

18)            Councillor Littman noted that he shared many of the concerns already raised in the debate; he had particular concern in relation to the urban assessment and noted that the proposals were for many more houses than originally identified.

19)            Councillor Wares stated that he accepted Officer’s views on air quality, but still had remaining concerns in relation to the design as the proposed development was not in-keeping with Saltdean; he highlighted the need for new homes in the city, but urged the Committee not to agree to unacceptable design for the sake of new homes.

20)            Councillor Morris noted the difficulty of the decision before the Committee, but he felt a better scheme could be realised at this site.

21)            Councillor Inkpin-Leissner noted that he was not completely against the development, but he raised concerns in relation to overdevelopment, traffic and flood risk. For these reason he stated he would not support the Officers recommendation.

22)            Councillor Mac Cafferty also noted the difficulty of the decision, but highlighted that the city’s housing allocation could not be met through brownfield sites alone. With this in mind the Committee would have to determine increasingly emotive sites such as this; however, the urban fringe was evidence that the principle of development on the site was acceptable – for these reasons he would support the Officer recommendation.

23)            Councillor Gilbey highlighted there was no guidance on acceptable distances between developments and the national park; she noted that she did not personally like the design, but having attended the site visit she did not object to the principle of development on the site and the city needed additional housing – for these reasons she would support the Officer recommendation.

24)            The Chair stated that the decision was very difficult, but she acceptable the advice of experts in relation to flooding and air quality. She went on to state that her major concern related to design and for this reason she would not support the Officer recommendation.

25)            A vote was taken and the Officer recommendation that the Committee be minded to grant to the application; this was not carried on a vote of 3 in support with 8 against and 1 abstention. Reasons were then proposed by Councillor Littman to refuse the application and these were seconded by the Chair. A short adjournment was then held to allow the Chair, Councillor Littman, the Planning & Building Control Applications Manager, the Senior Lawyer, the Planning Policy Manager and the Principal Planning Officer to draft the reasons in full.

26)            A vote was taken on each of the two proposed reasons for refusal to determine if one or both of them would form the substantive reason(s) for refusal when a final recorded vote was taken.

27)            A vote was taken on the first proposed reason for refusal:

“The proposed development by reason of its design is out of keeping with the prevailing character of the urban fringe area and does not emphasize its positive characteristics in terms of prevailing style and material, would result in an incongruous development of detriment to the character of the local area and fails to enhance the surrounding landscape. These demonstrable and significant adverse impacts are considered to outweigh any benefits of the proposed scheme. As such the proposal is contrary to policies QD1, QD2, NC5 and NC8 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan 2005 and policies SA4 and  SA5 of the emerging City Plan Part One.”

28)            This was carried.

29)            A vote was taken on the second proposed reason for refusal:

“By virtue of the scale of development proposed and associated site coverage it is considered that, in this sensitive location, the harmful impacts of the proposal on local landscape character, visual amenity and the setting of the National Park, represents an overdevelopment of the site.   These demonstrable and significant adverse impacts are considered to outweigh any benefits of the proposed scheme. As such the proposal is contrary to policy NC5 and NC8 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan 2005 and policies SA4 and SA5 of the emerging City Plan Part One.”

30)            This was not carried.

31)            A recorded vote was then held and Councillors: Cattell, C. Theobald, Barradell, Bennett, Hamilton, Inkpin-Leissner, Littman, Wares and Wealls voted that permission be refused and Councillors: Gilbey, Mac Cafferty and Morris voted that permission not be refused

130.1    RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration the Officer recommendation, but resolves to REFUSE planning permission for the reason set out below:

i.       The proposed development by reason of its design is out of keeping with the prevailing character of the urban fringe area and does not emphasize its positive characteristics in terms of prevailing style and material, would result in an incongruous development of detriment to the character of the local area and fails to enhance the surrounding landscape. These demonstrable and significant adverse impacts are considered to outweigh any benefits of the proposed scheme. As such the proposal is contrary to policies QD1, QD2, NC5 and NC8 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan 2005 and policies SA4 and SA5 of the emerging City Plan Part One.