Agenda item - BH2024/01289 - Land to the Rear of 15 Dean Court Road, Rottingdean, Brighton - Full Planning

1.    The case officer introduced the application to the committee.

Speakers

2.    James Halls addressed the committee on behalf of the neighbouring residents and stated that nine letters of objection have been received since the application was amended. The development was considered incongruous and higher than the existing garage. It was noted that policies have changed, however, the development will be outstanding in the location. The white and cream render will look out of place. The small garden left after the development will feel cramped on the plot. Numbers 13 and 17 will be overlooked. The case officer did not visit neighbouring properties. The development will have an adverse impact on the area. The committee were requested to defer the application till a site visit could take place.

3.    Julie Lawrence of Rottingdean Parish Council addressed the committee and stated that they considered the development to be against policy S1 and does not meet others. The scheme will be an over development of the site, which should not be considered as an infill development. There have been 150 new builds in Rottingdean, and the Parish Council have supported them. This development will equal a loss of amenity space and increase density. The application contravenes policy. The Parish Council object to the scheme.

4.    Ward Councillor Fishleigh addressed the committee and requested a site visit by members. They considered the development would affect the neighbours and they should have been visited. The councillor did not consider this to be an infill development, and it would be disappointing to have the scheme granted permission. The application offers only one house. It was considered that if refused, the applicant could go to appeal, and the inspector would make the decision.

5.    The case officer noted that two additional letters of representation were received, and these appeared on the Late List. A site visit had been carried out, and even though the neighbours were not visited the views were seen. There are tree protection measures in place by condition. The development is considered by planning officers to be an infill development.

Answers to Committee Member Questions

6.    Councillor Theobald was informed that the previous application in 2004 was an outline application only. The first-floor accommodation has been removed. The rear garden is 85sqm, with a front garden of 50sqm.

7.    Councillor Winder was informed that the overall plot size was considered acceptable.

8.    Councillor Loughran was informed that the proposals would not be visible from Dean Court Road. The upper parts of the development would be visible from Gorham Avenue above the existing boundary fence.

Debate

9.    Councillor Earthey stated they would vote against the application. They considered the topography of the site was misleading and a site visit was recommended. The proposals will not help the housing crisis, and this was not an infill development.

10. Councillor Shanks considered the definition of infill development fitted the scheme and this was a good use of space. The councillor supported the application.

11. Councillor Robinson agreed more housing was needed and they supported the application.

12. Councillor Loughran considered the one storey height to be good and the parking to be well hidden, however, the appearance was not right.

13. Councillor Winder raised concerns regarding building standards and the loss of land to the original dwelling.

14. Councillor Theobald was torn as they noted only two objection letters, no first floor and not much garden.

Vote

15. A vote was taken, and by 7 to 2, and 1 abstention the committee agreed 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.