Agenda item - BH2021/01800 - 3 Tumulus Road, Saltdean, Brighton - Householder Planning Consent

1.       The Planning Manager introduced the application to the Committee by reference to aerial photographs, plans and elevational drawings. A presentation was given setting out the rationale for the officer report recommendation. It was explained that the plans had been amended during the course of the application in order to lower the proposed roof and south side facing dormers. This had been done in order to meet officer concerns regarding adverse harm to southern neighbours from overlooking and the appearance of the host property in the neighbouring street scene.

          Questions

2.       Councillor Fishleigh asked whether the photographs shown had been taken during the course of a site visit. In her view they did not indicate the true impact that this development would have on the neighbouring properties, nor the level of overlooking and detriment which would result, particularly to the rear.

3.       Councillor Theobald enquired whether neighbouring residents had seen the latest plans in respect of the proposed scheme and whether it had been re-advertised. The Principal Planning Officer, Liz Arnold explained that the scheme had not been re-advertised following the amendments made which in this instance would result in a smaller less intrusive scheme. The amended scheme had however been uploaded to the Planning section of the council website.

4.       The Legal Adviser to the Committee, Hilary Woodward, explained that it was not always necessary for schemes to be re-advertised. Details had been uploaded to the council website and the onus was on individuals to check any updates on applications in which they were interested.

          Debate

5.       Councillor Fishleigh stated that she had been contacted by neighbours who were unaware of the changes and were concerned that decisions were being taken to the advantage of a property developer without the benefit of a site visit or an understanding of the severe detriment which would result. Sale of the current building on site had already taken place and Councillor Fishleigh considered that this application should be refused and the new owners required to come back before the Committee with a significantly improved scheme which took greater consideration of neighbouring dwellings and street scene. In her view the application should be refused on the grounds of overshadowing, overdevelopment and poor design.

6.       Councillor Ebel stated that in her view the proposed scheme accorded with existing policy and was of an acceptable design.

7.       Councillor Shanks was in agreement that the application had been made in accordance with policy, had been amended to address concerns raised and was acceptable.

          Vote

8.       A vote was taken and on a vote of 6 to 3 planning permission was granted.

24.7    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.