Agenda item - BH2019/01183 - 44 The Cliff, Rottingdean, Brighton - Full Planning

Hard landscaping for the creation of a sunken garden. The proposals also incorporate: the extension of an existing decked area and retaining walls; and associated works. (Part Retrospective).

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Ward Affected: Rottingdean Coastal

Hard landscaping for the creation of a sunken garden. The proposals also incorporate: the extension of an existing decked area and retaining walls; and associated works. (Part Retrospective).

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

              Officer Presentation

(2)          The Principal Planning Officer, Liz Arnold introduced the application and gave a detailed presentation by reference to site plans, photographs and elevational drawings detailing the proposals. It was important that notwithstanding enforcement investigations in respect of other units and their use on-site, that the application before committee that day, which was part retrospective, was for engineering operations including the excavation of the rear garden to enable the creation of a sunken garden, as well as enlargement of the existing terrace area. The excavation had already been carried out, whilst the terrace was yet to be completed. The main considerations in determining the application related to the design and appearance of the proposed works, the impact of the proposal on neighbouring amenity and the archaeological implications of the proposed excavation.

(3)          The area that had been excavated was located at the southern half of the elongated rear garden, separated from the main house by a considerable distance. A roughly rectangular area of approx. 400sqm had been excavated to a depth of approx. 1.9m to create a sunken garden. Due to the high boundary treatments, the excavated area was not visible from neighbouring properties, the pitch-and-putt course or the A259 and as such it was not considered that harmful visual impact would arise. Works proposed to the extended terrace area had been amended since initial submission of the application, with the proposed terrace reduced in area and altered in layout to better reflect the pre-existing layout. As amended, the proposal involved the southwards extension of the upper-tier terrace adjacent to the existing outbuilding by 3m for a width of 6.5m. The extended terrace was in brickwork with a glass balustrade and was considered not to have a harmful visual impact on the appearance of the site or the wider area.

(4)          A number of issues had been raised regarding these works and the manner in which the works had been carried out and whilst they were of considerable importance they fell outside the remit of the planning regime and as such had not been considered in assessment of this application. Additionally, two new outbuildings had been constructed adjacent to the existing shaped outbuildings. These buildings did not form part of this application and had not therefore been assessed. The outbuildings were currently under investigation as part of the open Planning Enforcement case. The main considerations in determining this application related to the design and appearance of the proposed works, the impact of the proposal on neighbouring amenity and the archaeological implications of the proposed excavation. For the reasons set out in the report the application before the committee was recommended for approval.

              Public Speakers

(5)          Mr Jones spoke in his capacity as Chair of Roedean Residents Association on behalf of neighbouring objectors. Mr Jones stated that this application represented the latest in a series of flagrant abuses of the planning process by the applicant who had sought to carry out significant works to the site by stealth for their own profit. This application was not as it appeared and represented a veiled damage control tactic. Existing covenants had not been respected. The council itself had obstructed access to the site via the Council owned side passage through the placement of concrete blocks and the spoil that had been dumped on council land adjacent to the pitch and putt site, earth had been removed and trees had been hacked away. Deliberate and unlawful action had occurred. In view of all these concerns the committee were invited to refuse the application.

(6)          Councillor Fishleigh asked whether the measures referred to and erection of the concrete barrier had been undertaken in response to damage caused and Mr Jones confirmed that it was his understanding that they had.

(7)          Councillor Shanks sought further clarification on this point and it was confirmed that the pitch and putt facility was situated on land leased from the council.

(8)          Councillor Yates stated that it was his understanding that a licence had been required in order to have access across the council’s land in order to bring building materials onto the application site. As the conditions of that licence had been breached and damage had been caused, it had been revoked and measures to prevent access undertaken.

(9)          Ms Sheath spoke on behalf of the applicants in support of their application. The application before committee for determination related simply to the provision of the sunken garden and its retaining walls as set out. The enforcement investigations and other matters cited fell outside the area of the site which was covered by this application and should not form part of its consideration. The site was enclosed and the sunken garden did not overlook neighbouring properties and would not be visible from outside of the site.

              Questions of Officers

(10)       Councillor Fishleigh asked further questions relating to the issues raised by the Chair of Roedean Residents Association on behalf of local objectors referring to removal of access rights and She also referred to the fact that this was a retrospective application and to current investigations.

(11)       The Legal Adviser to the Committee explained that it was not unlawful for an application to be submitted retrospectively and that the current investigations by the enforcement team fell outside the remit of the application before committee.

(12)       Councillor Miller referred to the fact that a large quantity of chalk appeared to have been removed from the site in connection with the sunken garden asking regarding arrangements out into place for its removal and seeking assurances that this had been undertaken appropriately and lawfully with the benefit and of the necessary licences. Officers confirmed that they did not have that information and that a condition could not be applied in respect of materials already removed from the site. Councillor Miller also asked whether the terracing which would result in consequence if the proposed treatment would be more visible in views to/from the sea and in the context of the adjacent national park and was advised that it was not considered that they would.

(13)       Councillor Yates asked why the applicant had chosen to build the retaining walls with painted pre-cast concrete panels and was advised that was the applicant’s design preference.

(14)       Councillor Simson referred to the smashed glazing panels observed on site, also clearly visible on google earth. It had been asserted that their removal and destruction had exposed the neighbouring property to increased exposure to high winds, having removed the natural barrier which had previously existed, asking whether/what consideration could be given to that detrimental impact.

(15)       The Planning Manager, Paul Vidler stated that a lot of the points raised by the speaker and by members in response to them did not relate to the development application before them and the committee needed to determine that on its planning merits.

(16)       Councillor Yates noted all that had been said in respect of members determining the application before them but was concerned and frustrated by the inability to consider future prospects for developing the garden and the impact it could have.

(17)       Councillor Littman referred to the glass panels. He wished to know whether they formed part of this application and was concerned that they represented a safety hazard asking whether they could be considered to be contrary to policy CP12. The Planning Manager, Paul Vidler confirmed that considerations would relate to the appearance rather than the structure itself. Arrangements needed to be in place to ensure that the structure was safe or disposed of safely but was covered by other legislation. Councillor Littman sought clarification as to whether a dangerous structure could of itself be considered to have an impact on amenity.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(18)       Councillor Yates stated that he had concerns that the proposed scheme could have a negative impact and if the scheme was approved, he considered that stringent landscaping conditions should be applied. He considered the application to be the most perverse that he had had to consider. Councillor Shanks concurred in that view.

(19)       Councillor Miller stated that he considered the application to be laughable in that it showed a total disregard for the planning process and the local planning authority. He did not understand why the owners would want to eradicate a sea view that they had paid a premium for and was of the view that it would have a detrimental impact on the setting of the national park and street scene. He was unhappy that details were not available regarding removal of excavated materials from site.

(20)       Councillor Theobald had concerns about protection of neighbouring archaeology. It was confirmed however that the County Archaeologist had made an independent assessment and had raised no objection.

(21)       Councillor Williams stated that she shared other members concerns and did not feel able to support the application. A recommendation was proposed that should the application be granted landscaping had to be approved by condition. This was voted on and defeated.

(22)       A vote was taken on the officer recommendation to grant the application and this was lost on a vote of 6 to 3 with 1 abstention. Councillor Miller then proposed that the application be refused on the grounds of detrimental impact on landscape and the national park and street scene by virtue of its design, and detrimental impact on occupiers which would be contrary to policies QD27 and CP12 of the Brighton and Hove City Plan. The proposal was seconded by Councillor Simson and it was agreed that the final form of wording of the proposed reasons for refusal be agreed by the Planning Manager in consultation with Councillors Miller and Simson.

(23)       A recorded vote was then taken and Councillors Williams, Theobald, Fishleigh, Miller, Shanks and Simson voted that the application be refused. Councillors Hill, the Chair; Mac Cafferty and Yates voted that planning permission be granted and Councillor Littman abstained. Therefore planning permission was refused on a vote of 6 to 3 with 1 abstention.

35.3       RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration but resolves to REFUSE planning permission on the grounds proposed by Councillor Miller. The final wording to be used in the decision letter to be agreed by the Planning Manager in consultation with the proposer and seconder.