Agenda item - BH2017/03397, 69 Saltdean Drive, Saltdean, Brighton - Full Planning

Erection of single storey rear extension with associated roof extension. Side passageway roof alteration. Replacement white UPVC windows and doors to match existing (Retrospective).

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Ward Affected: Rottingdean Coastal

              Erection of a single storey rear extension with associated roof extension. Side passageway roof alteration. Replacement white UPVC windows and doors to match existing (Retrospective).

              Officer Presentation

(1)          It was noted that although two separate schemes were to be considered as they related to the same application site the a joint presentation would be made covering both schemes and the Committee would ask questions and consider both on their planning merits and would vote on each scheme separately. Speakers would have the opportunity to speak separately on both schemes.

(2)          The Principal Planning Officer, Liz Arnold, introduced both schemes and gave a presentation in relation to both by reference to site plans elevational drawings and photographs. It was noted that the main considerations in determining the application were the impact of the proposals on the appearance of the property on amenity and on parking in the area around the application site. The application was retrospective as the works had largely been constructed at the time of the officer site visit.

(3)          An assessment of the transport and parking issues associated with both applications had concluded that there would be only a slight increase on the trips generated and that the additional parking demand would not result in a severe impact on the highways network, the additional parking would not be likely to be at the busiest times for other parking demands in the area and impact would be reduced in that way. In light of transport comments received and the commitment made by the applicant to reduce the numbers of trips generated, the issue of parking was not considered to be severe enough to merit refusal. Residents had physical or learning difficulties which prevented them from driving and staff would be encouraged to use public transport and received subsidised bus passes from their employer.

(4)          The impact on the adjacent properties had been fully considered in terms of daylight, sunlight, outlook and privacy following a site visit and no significant harm had been identified, approval was therefore recommended.

              Public Speakers

(5)          Mrs Gallagher spoke in her capacity as Chair of the Saltdean Residents Association setting out their objections to the scheme and those of local residents. It was considered that use of the car park by those visiting the site was completely unacceptable, this was already used by those living in the adjacent blocks and meant that for large periods of time it was unavailable to those using the local shops. This created greater congestion on the neighbouring streets and gave rise to additional traffic/road safety hazards. Residents had been seeking to address this issue via their ward councillors in concert with the council and it was hoped that the car park could have a barrier fitted and be converted to pay and display in order to address and alleviate this problem. The applicants already had two other units in the area and these did not give rise to problems whereas this use at this location would. Residents were also very concerned that the works had been carried out without consultation and had been completed without the necessary permissions being in place.

(6)          Councillor Mears spoke in her capacity as a Local Ward Councillor setting out her objections to the scheme. Councillor Mears stated that residents were very disappointed that such a scheme had been completed without their prior knowledge, without consultation and without the necessary permissions being in place. Use of the car park was already very problematic and this use at this location would simply worsen that situation which was already serious. In her view both applications were out of keeping with the street scene by virtue of the size and bulk of the changes to the existing bungalow and it was totally unrealistic to consider that staff would arrive by bus given the limited service nearby the site. Nor was it acceptable to consider that visiting the site should use the adjacent car park in view of the problems outlined. Interestingly, when extension of Saltdean Primary School had been agreed that had been with a condition that Lustrells Vale Car Park could not be used. Parking was an on-going problem in Saltdean and at the last Local Action Team meeting which had been attended by the Police and the council’s transport officer these concerns had been raised and means by which the car park’s designation and use could be changed were in the process of being explored.

(7)          Mr Macalister and Mr Hodjaev spoke on behalf of the applicants in support of their application. They both outlined the low scale use to which the units would be put confirming that when they visited the site themselves they parked at the applicant’s other site(s) nearby, where parking was not a problem and walked to this one. None of those residing at the site could drive due to the nature of their disabilities and traffic movements associated with them leaving the site to attend various activities would not generate a significant number of additional traffic movements. The staff employed mainly lived locally and were provided with passes towards their travel costs via public transport. In answer to questions of Councillor Hyde regarding why planning permission had not been sought for this development it was explained that notwithstanding that this had been sought at their other two sites in the area, the applicants did not realise that the scale of works proposed in relation to this application could not be carried out as permitted development. Councillor Moonan also sought clarification in relation to this matter.

              Questions for Officers

(8)          The Principal Planning Officer, Liz Arnold explained that the issues raised in relation to a retrospective application being made were not germane to determination of the application itself which must be judged on its planning merits. It was confirmed that planning permission had not been required for the change of use.

(9)          Councillor Moonan sought clarification regarding pre-existing parking arrangements in the area and whether limitations had been placed on any potential use by the school and whether parking arrangements could be tightened up.

(10)       Councillor C Theobald referred to the current use of the car park and it was explained by the Traffic Engineer, David Farnham, that was no barrier in operation currently nor was there any facility for payment to be taken for use of the car park or for its use to be time limited.

(11)       Councillor Gilbey asked for confirmation as to whether any of those living on site would have mobility vehicles and if so how and where they would be stored.

(12)       Councillor Bennett sought confirmation regarding use of the front driveway and whether vehicles could be parked there.

(13)       Councillor Miller sought clarification regarding access to the bedroom located to the side of the property when the driveway was in use.

              Debate and Decision Making Process

(14)       Councillor Daniel noted that the comments made regarding traffic movements generated by the site and their potential impact on the car park and in the locality and was in agreement that they would not result in a significant increase.

(15)       Councillor Littman considered that the proposals were out of keeping with the area or would have a detrimental impact on parking.

(16)       Councillor Inkpin-Leissner stated that he considered the proposals to be acceptable and that the traffic implications had been addressed.

(17)       Councillor C Theobald considered it regrettable that the application was retrospective and considered that the proposals would have a detrimental impact on local parking.

(18)       Councillor Gilbey considered that the scheme was acceptable and supported the officer recommendation.

(19)       Councillor Hyde stated that whilst she was a supporter of supported housing she had concerns that in this instance it was not appropriate at this location.

(20)       A vote was taken and on a vote of 9 with 3 abstentions planning permission was granted.

109.8    RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report and resolves to GRANT planning permission subject to the Conditions and Informatives also set out in the report.