Decision - BH2025/00969 - 95 Marine Drive, Rottingdean - Full Planning

1.    The Planning Manager introduced the application to the committee.

Speakers

2.    Roger Hanlon addressed the committee as a resident and stated that they lived to the rear of the development site. They objected to the loss of light, overshadowing and loss of amenity. The proposed height will be oppressive on neighbours, as will the bulk and massing. The proposals are higher than the existing property. The scheme includes windows that will overlook neighbours. The development will reduce view, create overshadowing, and be overwhelming.

3.    Danny Tobin addressed the committee as a resident and stated that they considered the officer report to downplay the loss of light. If the committee permit the development, they will normalise the size and scale of development. The height of the proposals exceeds the existing property. The local family homes are being lost, and this development does not include any social or affordable housing.

4.    Ward Councillor Fishleigh addressed the committee and stated that they considered affordable housing should be baked into the application and adhered to. Applications should adhere to the policies of the neighbourhood plan. The committee were asked to refuse the application.

5.    Rory Ellacott addressed the committee as the agent acting on behalf of the applicant and stated that the application was amended and the design was in character with the neighbours. The development is lower than the neighbouring buildings. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states more homes are wanted, and there are nine in the proposed development, which has been appraised by the district valuer. A S106 agreement is attached to the scheme. The proposals are well designed in accordance with the city development plan.

Answers to Committee Member Questions

6.    Councillor Shanks was informed that the proposals were in line with the existing forward building line, and any further forward would be considered intrusive. The proposed roofline aligns with the neighbouring properties to the sides. There is a condition for landscaping the site which includes a 2m high fence and planting. The majority of windows will be given screening. The scheme is considered to be small under the city plan. Rottingdean Parish council objections are included in the report.

7.    Councillor Sheard was informed that there are nine units in the development. Housing density is measured by the number of dwellings per hectare not the number of occupiers.

8.    Councillor Robinson was informed that the neighbouring properties to the rear were on higher ground. There is some pattern to the layout of properties in the area.

9.    Councillor Theobald was informed that the size of the scheme did not draw a contribution to balance the lack of affordable housing. There will be a late review imbedded in the S106 agreement. The seafront is considered the streetscene. The number of flats in the neighbouring developments to the sides is four and a private family home.

10. Councillor Earthey was informed that the Rottingdean Neighbourhood Plan covered the village vernacular, however, at the site location there is a huge variety of styles and design. The neighbouring properties were constructed before the Rottingdean Neighbourhood Plan existed; therefore, the committee can only look at the proposed development on its own merits. Unsold flats in other developments in the area is not a planning issue.

11. Councillor Pickett was informed that the details for water drainage were to be submitted by condition. The details of the landscaping are also to be submitted by condition. The agent confirmed that the existing front boundary wall is to be retained. Integral car charging points will be considered by Building Control.

12. Councillor Thomson was informed that the affordable housing would be 40% of a development over nine units. Developments over five units, and under nine, will have a late-stage review. If the cost of the development decreases, then the scheme will be reassessed. The application has gone through a number of amendments to get this stage, and the negotiations have taken time.

13. Councillor Nann was informed that they could consider the objections by Rottingdean Parish Council.

Debate

14. Councillor Theobald considered the design to be poor and boring. The scheme will be large and expansive, overlooking neighbours and is an overdevelopment of the site. The councillor was against the application.

15. Councillor Shanks considered the Parish Council objections should be considered and the impact on the street scene was not good. It was not good there was no affordable housing. The councillor was against the application.

16. Councillor Robinson was not happy with the lack of affordable housing, but they understood why. The development was considered to be similar to the side neighbours. The councillor supported the application.

17. Councillor Earthey considered the development was contrary to the Rottingdean Neighbourhood Plan and was against the application.

18. Councillor Sheard considered the lack of affordable housing to not be good; however, they were able to consider what was in front of the committee. The councillor considered the housing crisis, the neighbourhood plan and the developments built before, which are massive. The scheme was not considered out of character and the density was acceptable. The councillor supported the application.

19. Councillor Parrott did not like the design; however, it was not overbearing. The councillor supported the application.

20. Councillor Thomson noted the neighbourhood plan was to protect against overdevelopment, however, officer’s recommendation was to grant planning permission. The councillor supported the application.

Vote

21.A vote was taken, and by 7 to 3 the committee agreed to grant planning permission.

22.RESOLVED: That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report and resolves to be MINDED TO GRANT planning permission subject to a s106 agreement on the Heads of Terms set out in the report and the Conditions and Informatives as set out in the report, SAVE THAT should the s106 Planning Obligation not be completed or significantly advanced, on or before the 6 May 2026 the Head of Planning is hereby authorised to refuse planning permission for the reasons set out at the end of the report.