Agenda item - BH2016/00320, 67 Falmer Road, Rottingdean, Brighton - Full Planning

Demolition of existing house and garage and erection of 4no four bedroom and 5no three bedroom houses (C3).

RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

Ward Affected: Rottingdean Coastal

Demolition of existing house and garage and erection of 4no four bedroom and 5no three bedroom houses (C3).

(1)          The Principal Planning Officer, Chris Swain, gave a presentation detailing the scheme by reference to site plans, floor plans and elevational drawings showing the existing dwelling house on site and the proposed development. It was noted that one additional letter of objection had been received as set out in the Late Representations List. Reference was also made to the earlier refused scheme and the differences between the two.

(2)          It was explained that the main considerations in determining this application related to the principle of the proposed development, the impacts of the proposed development upon the visual amenities of the area including the setting of the South Downs National Park, the living conditions for future occupiers and the impact upon the amenities of the neighbouring properties. Sustainability, ecology, flood risk and transport impacts were also relevant.

(3)          Following the recent Court of Appeal decision (11 May 2016) regarding these matters, it was note that the provisions of national policy in respect of affordable housing were not mandatory and that local circumstances could justify an appropriate exception to the approach outlined in national policy and guidance. In applying Development Plan Policy CP20 Affordable Housing, it was considered that in this instance there were specific and genuine local circumstances that justified an exception to national policy and guidance.

In summary, those local circumstances constituted:

·                     The significant need for affordable housing in the city 

·                     A constrained housing land supply 

·                     The nature of land supply in terms of high residential delivery from smaller sites and brownfield site conversions, changes of use and redevelopment including vacant buildings. 

(4)          Whilst it was noted that there was an emerging Rottingdean Neighbourhood Plan, the draft plan has not yet been published and very limited weight can be attached at this stage. Representations had been received that outlined concerns relating to ownership issues on the boundaries of the site. However, the applicant had provided revised site plans clarifying the boundaries and has stated that they consider that the correct ownership certificates had been signed on the application form. Overall the scheme was considered acceptable and minded to grant approval was therefore recommended.

Public Speakers

(5)       Mr Howie spoke as local objector setting out his objections and those of others in the vicinity. The scheme as presented represented total overdevelopment of site and sought to cram too much onto a greenfield site. In their view the previous reasons for refusal had not been overcome and ambiguities had been exploited by the applicants.

(6)       Councillor Mears spoke in her capacity as a Local Ward Councillor setting out her objections to the proposed scheme. Apart from the other issues outlined by the objector there were unresolved parking issues, the number of on-site parking places were limited and included disabled parking. It was likely that those occupying these units would have more than one car and access for refuse vehicles etc., could result in a tail back and could exacerbate the existing parking problems in Falmer Road with the increased number of vehicle movements onto this busy highway giving rise to further problems. There would also be a detrimental noise impact on no 71.

            Questions of Officers

(7)       Councillor Moonan enquired regarding the weight that needed to be given to the earlier decision by the Planning Inspectorate.

(8)       Councillor Miller referred to the lengthy conditions proposed and sought clarification regarding them as he was in agreement with the speaker that a number of them appeared to be ambiguous. The Planning Manager, Major Applications, Paul Vidler, explained that when making his decision the Inspector would have used current guidance when formulating that decision. As such the Committee needed to be mindful of that, it was a material planning consideration.

(9)       Councillor Hyde sought clarification regarding the location of on-site parking spaces.

(10)     Councillor Russell-Moyle requested information regarding refuse collection arrangements. It was confirmed that there would be 16 parking spaces including the garage spaces. Further details were required in respect of refuse collection arrangements and were required by condition as would details in relation to landscaping within the site and to its boundaries.

            Debate and Decision Making Process

(11)     Councillor Mac Cafferty stated that it was important for the Committee to be mindful of the Inspector’s decision and the rationale for it when arriving at their own decision.

(12)     Councillor Russell-Moyle stated that on balance and also in his view because the Committee’s hands were largely tied in view of the Inspector’s decision, he considered that this scheme was marginally preferable.

(13)     Councillor Inkpin-Leissner stated that he had concerns regarding the scheme enquiring whether if approved it could be ensured that every condition imposed was met 100%. The Planning Manager, Major Projects, Paul Vidler, explained that was not possible, if however, officers became aware that they were not being met that would be investigated. The Principal Planning Officer, Chris Swain, also explained that the additional information required from the developer would be assessed and would ensure that robust safeguards were in place.

(14)     Councillor Morris sought clarification of the time frame for receipt of this information.

(15)     Councillors Hyde and Miller asked whether it would be possible to require additional double yellow line markings adjacent to the Court Ord Road junction. However, the Senior Solicitor, Hilary Woodward, explained that as an assessment had already been made of the highway arrangements to be put into place it would be difficult to justify additions at this stage. The Development and Transport Assessment Manager, Steven Shaw, concurred in that view.

(16)     Councillor Wares stated that even though the revised scheme reduced the harm it did not change his reasons for refusing the previous application and irrespective of the Planning Inspector overturning the committee’s decision, he would not support this application.

(17)     Councillor Littman concurred in that view.

(18)     A vote was taken in respect of a review mechanism to assess viability of the scheme. This was agreed on a vote of 11 with 1 abstention. A further vote was taken regarding imposition of yellow-line highway markings which was lost on a vote of 6 to 5 with 1 abstention. The substantive vote was then taken and on a vote of 9 to 1 with 2 abstentions planning permission was granted.

96.10  RESOLVED - That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report and resolves that it is MINDED TO GRANT planning permission subject to a s106 agreement and the Conditions and Informatives set out in the report and the amendments set out below:

            Condition1: Change all drawing numbers to read TA943. Change drawing numbers to TA943/P14/A and TA943/P17/A.

            Addition S106 Head of Terms:

            Review Mechanism to reassess the viability of the scheme close to completion in order to, where possible, secure up to policy compliant level of affordable housing via an offsite financial contribution.