Agenda item - BH2020/01756 - The White House, Roedean Road, Brighton - Full Planning

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Ward Affected : Rottingdean Coastal

Demolition of existing dwelling house (C3) and erection of 3no three storey detached dwelling houses (C3) with associated landscaping, car and cycle parking, revised access and vehicle crossover.

(1)           It was noted that an in-depth presentation had been provided by officers in advance of the meeting and was included on the council website detailing the scheme by reference to site plans, elevational drawings and photographs which also showed the proposed scheme in the context of neighbouring development.

(2)           The application site comprised a two storey detached property in use as a single dwelling house on the northern side of Roedean Road. It was well set back within the site with a large front lawn which sloped down towards the long curved driveway. Access onto the road was shared with the Ocean Heights development to the east. The proposal would provide three new dwelling houses of a good standard of accommodation which were considered to be well designed and  to contribute towards creating a sustainable neighbourhood with improved biodiversity and ecology without having an adverse impact on the national park, neighbouring amenity, highways or archaeological assets. Approval was therefore recommended.

Speakers

(3)           Councillor Mears spoke in her capacity as a Local Ward Councillor setting out her objections and those of local objectors. In her view the proposed development would be gross overdevelopment of the site, would be bulky, covering the width of the plot would cause overshadowing and would be too close to the boundary with Roedean Road. The level of on-site parking provision was considered to be too low and it was also considered that there would be a serious safety issue as a result of traffic using access to the site on a blind bend.

(4)      Ms Sheath spoke on behalf of the applicants in support of their application explaining that this application had been put forward following lengthy pre and post application discussions with officers. The development would have no negative impact on neighbouring development or the National Park. Access arrangements had been assessed but were considered appropriate for the level of development proposed given that access issues referred to already existed.

Questions of Officers

(5)      The Senior Planning Officer, Russell Brown, clarified the position in respect of hedges/screening on site.

(6)      Councillor Janio referred to the location of trees including any which were protected on site and this was clarified.

(7)      Councillor Theobald sought clarification of the size of the garden area for each dwelling unit and whether this site was under the control of the same developer as the neighbouring one. Confirmation of the amenity space provided was given and it was also confirmed that the two sites were in separate ownership.

(8)      The Chair, Councillor Littman, referred to the access arrangements to the site, whether they were in the ownership of the applicants and whether it would be appropriate for further improvements to be required including provision of a footway. It was explained that the existing substantial verge formed part of the adopted highway and that to require further improvements in view of the size of the development was considered to be disproportionate.

          Debate and Decision Making Process

(8)      Councillor Theobald stated that in her view the proposed scheme represented overdevelopment of the site. The resulting dwellings would be bulky, covered the whole site and would be built right up to the boundary, she was unable to support it.

(9)      Councillor Miller concurred agreeing that too much was proposed for the size of the site and would result in loss of amenity and overlooking.

(10)    Councillor Childs stated that he was of the view that the three dwellings proposed were acceptable and would make a contribution to the city’s housing supply.

(11)    Councillor Yates stated that on balance he considered the proposed scheme was acceptable and that he would be voting in support of it.

(12)    A vote was taken and on a vote of 7 to 2 planning permission was granted.

59.3    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.

          Note: Having declared a prejudicial interest in the above application Councillor Fishleigh withdrew from the meeting and took no part in the debate or decision making process.