Agenda item - BH2016/06251 - Land At Roedean Path, Brighton - Full Planning

Erection of a 2 storey plus basement dwelling (C3) with associated garden and parking

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE

Erection of a 2 storey plus basement dwelling (C3) with associated garden and parking.

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

Officer Presentation

2)               The Principal Planning Officer introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to photographs, plans and elevational drawings. The application proposed a new single dwelling on a slim parcel of land, which was adjacent to the pavement. The application proposed a three storey building with a basement, lower ground floor and upper ground floor. A previous application had been refused in relation to the impact on neighbouring amenity; although there was no significant impact raised in relation to this application. Concerns still remained with the size of the site, and this was evidenced by the need to sink two floors below ground level to accommodate the development. The character of the wider area was large houses on big plots, which the site could not replicate. The application was recommended for refusal for the reasons set out in the report.

Public Speaker(s) and Questions

3)               Andrea Bennett spoke in objection to the scheme in her capacity as a local resident, she invited the Committee to refuse the scheme stating that the site was not suitable as a building plot.

4)               Stephen Rowlins spoke in support of the application in his capacity as the applicant. He noted that the report did not identify overshadowing, and the design, architectural merits, sustainability and room sizes had all been reported upon positively. The windows would be orientated away from the outlook, and building into the slope was evidence of innovation. The subterranean basement added functionality, and letters of support had been received as well as support from Councillor Mears. A local residents’ association had also balloted its members and had not objected.

Questions for Officers

5)               In response to Councillor Morris it was explained that part of the proposed development would abut the pavement due to the constraints of the site.

6)               In response to Councillor Miller it was confirmed that the site had no permitted development rights as it was a separate piece of land.

Debate and Decision Making Process

7)               Councillor Mac Cafferty noted that the street itself had no character or form; the scheme was a clever use of the land, and there was no overlooking or overshadowing. He would not be supporting the Officer recommendation.

8)               Councillor Littman welcomed the clever use of the site, and noted that other sites nearby were as narrow. The sunken design was thoughtful and intelligent and an example of the type of creative approach to housing needed in the city.

9)               Councillor C. Theobald noted that she disagreed with the other speakers, and felt the plot needed to be wider to accommodate the scheme.

10)            Councillor Morris stated he would not support the Officer recommendation.

11)            Councillor Allen noted the scheme was imaginative and he would not be supporting the Officer recommendation.

12)            Councillor Russell-Moyle noted that the wall would improve the street scene.

13)            Councillor Miller noted that the road was not heavily used, and restoring the wall would improve the street scene. He stated he would not support the Officer recommendation.

14)            Councillor Simson felt the site was too cramped; she did not think building up the wall line was appropriate and would be supporting the Officer recommendation.

15)            The Chair noted that she agreed with the Officer recommendation; the scheme was overdevelopment, contrived and the site was not suitable for a dwelling.

16)            The Chair then put the application to the vote and the Officer recommendation was not carried with 5 in support, and 6 against. Councillor Littman then proposed reasons to grant the application and these were seconded by Councillor Mac Cafferty. A recorded vote was then taken, Councillors: Mac Cafferty, Allen, Littman, Miller, Morris and Russell-Moyle voted to grant the application and Councillors: Cattell, Gilbey C. Theobald, Simson, and Moonan voted to refuse the application.

121.10  RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration the Officer recommendation, but resolves to grant planning permission for the reasons set out below:

i)       The proposal would enhance the positive qualities of the local area.