Agenda item - BH2025/01886 - 21 Chailey Avenue, Rottingdean - Householder Planning Consent

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

Speakers

2.    Nigel Smith addressed the committee on behalf of objecting residents and stated that they considered the proposals to be an overdevelopment, transforming this modest cottage. The proposals increase the width, depth and height of the property giving an overbearing and terraced appearance. The development fails the Rottingdean Neighbourhood Plan, particularly policies S1 and H2. It also fails City Plan Part 2 policies DM18, DM21 and SPD12. The extensions are not subordinate. The impact on neighbour’s amenities would be severe, with extensive overlooking. There is an intensity of development on the plot when viewed with the existing large self-contained dwelling in the rear garden. Flooding issues in the area make the expansion of hard surfacing troubling. The proposals undermine the Neighbourhood Plan and fail on design, scale, neighbouring amenities and local character. The committee were requested to refuse the application.

3.    Robert Stevens addressed the committee as the applicant and stated that they owner of 21 Chailey Avenue and were appearing at committee following a lobbying of Rottingdean Parish Council by local residents. The applicant had acknowledged neighbours’ concerns and made alterations. The proposals were to maintain the unique style of the property and the design was to create a well-balanced home, more in line with the neighbouring properties. The design is appropriate, with no overlooking, loss of light or loss of amenities for neighbours. The scheme is sustainable and worth supporting. The committee were requested to approve the application.

Answers to Committee Members Questions

4.    Councillor Pickett was informed that the existing garage was to be retained and the height would be the same as the neighbouring properties.

5.    Councillor Thomson was informed that with regards to flooding, the hardstanding already exists, the garden area is not part of the application and there is no loss of light to neighbouring properties. The application has been amended with the reduction of the upper balcony, side windows and the insertion of obscure glazing to prevent overlooking.

6.    Councillor Earthey was informed that the gaps between properties were acceptable.

7.    Councillor Robinson was informed that the garage was linked to the neighbouring garage.

8.    Councillor Sheard was informed that the bulk of the proposals was not considered to be out of character for the area.

Debate

9.    Councillor Cattell considered that every house was different in the area and the gaps between are also different. It was not clear why the Parish Council objected. The councillor supported the application.

10. Councillor Nann was unable to see the objections and supported the application.

11.Councillor Pickett noted the large garden and there was not much overlooking, and plenty of space in the area. The councillor supported the application.

12.Councillor Parrott was unable to see the objections, and they considered the proposals were not too close to the plot boundary, and there was no impact on the South Downs National Park. The councillor supported the application.

13.Councillor Sheard noted the house was small and in a unique road, and understood that sudden changes can be shocking, however, areas do change. The councillor supported the application.

14. Councillor Robinson supported the application.

15. Councillor Thomson supported the application.

Vote

16. A vote was held, and the committee agreed unanimously to grant planning permission. (Councillor Theobald took no part in the decision-making or vote)

17. 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.