Agenda item - BH2024/01946 - Roedean House, 14 Roedean Way, Brighton - Full Planning

38.1       The case officer introduced the application to the committee.

Speakers

38.2       There were no speakers.

Answers to Committee Members questions

38.3       The case officer demonstrated to Councillor Theobald the extent to which the proposed front of the development would protrude beyond the site of the current dwelling. Councillor Theobald was also informed that the application had been reduced in size since its original submission.

38.4       Councillor Robinson was informed that the proposed development would sit 3.7m further forward and 2.2m higher than the existing building on the site.

38.5       Councillor Thomson was shown the buildings to either side of the application site.

38.6       Councillor Earthey was informed that the applicant was exempt from the Community Infrastructure Levy as they would be living in the development.

38.7       The Committee was informed that while the height of the proposed development would not exceed that of the neighbouring house to the west, it would exceed the neighbouring house to the east.

38.8       Councillor Thomson was informed that the top floor terrace had been reduced in size.

Debate

38.9       Councillor Theobald stated their disagreement to the removal of an acceptable house to be replaced with a larger house that would impact neighbouring properties and stated that they would not be supporting the application.

38.10   Councillor Robinson stated their concern regarding the imposing nature of the top floor terrace.

38.11   Councillor Winder expressed that the application would be overbearing and shared their concerns that the design of the building was oversized for the area.

38.12   Councillor Robinson expressed concerns regarding the lack of off-street parking and shared concerns about street overcrowding.

38.13   Councillor Thomson stated that they would be voting in support of the application.

38.14   The Chair stated that the proposal confused future housing design on the street.

Vote

38.15   A vote was taken with 4 in favour and 4 against the officer recommendation with 1 abstention. The Chair used their casting vote against the application.

38.16   It was resolved that the committee disagreed with the officer recommendation to grant the application.