7 September 2022 Planning Committee – Additional Representations

Page	Site Address	Application No.	Comment
Item A, p26	Palmer And Harvey House 106-112 Davigdor Road Hove BN3 1RE	BH2021/02014	Correction: For accuracy, paragraph 3.2 should read as follows: “3.2. The proposal is an amended resubmission of an earlier application (BH2020/00781) for a six-storey block of 43 flats which is currently subject to an Appeal against non-determination (ref. APP/Q1445/W/20/3266006).” Explanation: the current scheme differs substantially to the earlier scheme now subject to appeal.
Item A, p28	Palmer And Harvey House 106-112 Davigdor Road Hove BN3 1RE	BH2021/02014	One (1) additional letter of representation received objecting/commenting on the application as follows: - Consideration should be made to impacts to neighbouring consented units (outlook, privacy, daylighting, and overshadowing), and transport implications/parking pressure; - Development should be amended to mitigate overlooking towards existing/ established neighbouring sites and reduced in height to a scale more in keeping; - A more comprehensive proposal to develop the wider site would deliver more efficient development; - Insufficient on-street capacity to accommodate the proposed parking overspill; - Loss of car parking spaces currently serving PH House; - Requested that any permission is only granted subject to a legal agreement to restrict future occupiers of the development from obtaining parking permits. Officer Response: The issues regarding impact on neighbouring amenity (including from future occupiers of consented schemes) have been fully considered, reviewed by BRE, and are addressed in the Officer Report. The issues relating to compliance with redevelopment of the site (compliance with City Plan Part 2 Policy SSA3), height and scale of the proposed building, and parking pressure are also addressed within the Officer Report.
Item C Page 67	22 The Cliff Brighton BN2 5RE	BH2022/01281	E-mail received from the agent regarding proposed conditions, as set out below. Regarding condition 5 which reads: “The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the dwellings hereby permitted have been completed in compliance with Building Regulations Optional Requirement M4(2) (accessible and adaptable dwellings), other than the stepped pedestrian access route to the dwellings, and shall be retained in compliance with such requirement thereafter. Evidence of compliance shall be notified to the building control body appointed for the development in the appropriate Full Plans Application, or Building Notice, or Initial Notice to enable the building control body to check compliance.   Reason:  To ensure satisfactory provision of homes for people with disabilities and to meet the changing needs of households and to comply with Policies HO13 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan and DM1 of the Proposed Submission City Plan Part 2.” The agent has reviewed this condition and provided a comment that: “To alter the internal layout of the dwellings would require a considerable change and therefore do not feel that the dwellings can achieve M4(2) compliance and the condition should be removed.” Officer response: It has not been adequately demonstrated that the dwellings could or should not achieve M4(2) compliance and therefore the condition remains. If this is demonstrated at a later date the condition could be removed via a S73 application. Condition 17: The agent has sent in a Heritage Statement (HER) report which states that there have not been any significant archaeological findings in the local area and there has been no specific request for any archaeological works to be carried out. The agent requests that the condition is removed. Officer response: The statement needs to be assessed by the County Archaeologist, but if this is done prior to the Committee meeting and the information found satisfactory, the condition can be removed. Otherwise an approval of details application will ned to be submitted.
Item E Page 111	55 Auckland Drive Brighton BN2 4JD	BH2022/01630	Five (5) additional letters of representation received objecting to the application on grounds in addition to those already mentioned in part 5 of the Officer Report, namely: - Harm to residential amenity - No consideration of people’s health problems or well-being - Loss of a family home - The development has already commenced  Officer Response: The material planning issues including the impacts of the proposal on neighbouring amenity and the highway network have been fully considered and addressed in the Officer Report. The fact that the development has commenced is not a material planning consideration. If the application is refused, the case would be passed to the Planning Enforcement Team to investigate.