Agenda item - BH2024/00477 - 3 Westmeston Avenue, Saltdean, Brighton - Full Planning

1.         The Case Officer introduced the application to the committee.

Speakers

2.         Bruce Geddes addressed the committee as a neighbour and stated that they considered the normal protocol was to start works after gaining planning permission. It was noted that demolition had taken place before this application had been submitted to the planning department and it appeared the developer had not given the correct information as the consultation defers from plans submitted. The roof and landscaping have changed, and it appeared the developer was building whatever they cared to. A temporary stop notice should be served, and new drawings asked for. It was considered that the planning process was being manipulated. Real details should be provided.

3.         Filip Singh addressed the committee as the applicant and stated that the situation was unfortunate. Unforeseen cracks and inappropriate wall materials led to demolition after there had been honest effects to remodel the property. The development adheres to the approved designs. The neighbours and community have been engaged with and the development has been adapted to reflect concerns raised. It was considered objections had been received to this scheme, when others had in the street had received none. The committee were asked to consider the facts and not objections based on bias.

Answer to Committee Member Questions

4.         Councillor Allen was informed by the neighbour that the property overlooks the neighbouring properties. The property was built in the 1950s and the plot subdivided many years ago. This property is close to others. The rear extension is not shown on drawings. The extension will project beyond the rear building line of the neighbour. A balcony is also proposed to the rear. The distance to the boundaries to the development are less than 1m.

5.         Councillor Robinson was informed by the case officer that the development was approved in February 2024.

6.         Councillor Thomson was informed by the case officer that there is no balcony proposed. The neighbour considered they were adversely affected by the development and so were numbers 1 and 5.

7.         Councillor Earthey was informed by the case officer that the plans were final and that enforcement officers had been on site to check the scheme accorded with the previously approved plans which it did, other than demolition. The Planning Manager noted that enforcement action can be taken if the development differs from the plans. The applicant stated they were the final plans and that Building Control had approved them.

8.         Councillor Theobald was informed that the development is the same as the February 2024 approved plans in form and mass. The materials have been changed to black UVPC. The neighbour stated that the roof included a lantern, and the roof was not flat as shown in the plans. The applicant stated that this was not the case, and that the development was not finished yet and the roof will be flat.

Debate

9.         Councillor Earthey considered the application to be a disturbing case as the demolition had not been approved. The councillor noted that the area included many bungalows, and they were likely to be developed. Considering the age of the walls etc, the councillor suggested that other developments look at the structural integrity of the dwellings first before submitting plans. The councillor considered the application no worse than others.

10.      Councillor Allen was disappointed to see the construction works but they considered the objectors had not shown the harm and there was no solid reason for a refusal. The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) would be welcomed in the area.

11.      Councillor Theobald considered the application was difficult to decide as they disliked retrospective applications. However, they considered the application difficult to turn down.

12.      Councillor Robinson noted the development was the same as in February 2024 and most of the concerns raised were not planning matters. The councillor supported the application.

13.      Councillor Winder stated that they were unhappy with the development.

14.      Councillor Loughran noted that a Temporary Stop Notice should perhaps have been issued but the proposals were clear.

Vote

15.      A vote was taken, and the committee agreed unanimously to grant planning permission.

16.      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 in the report.