Agenda item - To consider and determine planning applications on the plans list date 10 September 2008

(I) TREES

86.1

There were none. However  Councillors  McCaffery,   Mrs  Norman and  Mrs Theobald  sought clarification  regarding   the  circumstances which  had  led  to  removal  of trees at  the  following  locations  and  confirmation that it  had  proved  necessary  to  remove  all  of  the  trees  cited .  They  were  all  firmly  of  the  view  that the removal  of  trees  should  be  resisted  save  where  they  were  doing irreparable  damage  to  retaining  walls  or  the  foundations  of  a  dwelling  house  for  example ;  or  where a  tree  was  in  such  condition  that its  health  could  not  be  improved.

Application BH2008/02496, 77 Springfield  Road  ;

Application BH2008/02675,  61  Beaconsfield  Villas ;

Application BH2008/02565,  27 Surrenden  Road ;

      Application BH 2008/02577,  31 Surrenden  Road ;  and 

      Application BH2008/02528, Flat 2,  91 Stanford  Avenue

(ii) SUBSTANTIAL OR CONTROVERSIAL APPLICATIONS OR APPLICATIONS DEPARTING FROM COUNCIL POLICY

86.2

Application BH2008/1744,University of  Brighton Falmer Campus,  Lewes  Road, Brighton –  Erection of  new  teaching accommodation set  over  five  floors with  associated  plant  and  machinery (Revised scheme of  those  previously permitted  under  Reserved  Matters Approval BH2005/05962) -  Part  Retrospective. 

86.3.

 It  was noted that the  application had  formed  the  subject of  a  site  visit prior  to  the  meeting.

86.4

The  Area Planning  Manager, East gave  a  presentation setting  out  the  constituent  elements  of  the  scheme and detailing the  changes  between the  scheme  as  originally  submitted  and the amended  scheme  which  was  before  Members  that day. He explained  that  the  application  was now  recommended  for  grant  rather  than  minded  to  grant  following  receipt  of a  completed  BREEAM  pre assessment  indicating  that the  scheme  would  achieve a  “good”  rating.

86.5

Councillor  Steedman sought  confirmation regarding overall  sustainability  of  the  scheme and relative  to  the “green” roofing  materials  proposed. It  was  explained  that a full sustainability  assessment  had  not  been  required  relative to  this  revised  reserved  matters  application. However,  besides  achieving  a  good overall  BREEAM rating  it  should  be  noted  that  chalkland materials  were  to  be  provided to roofs  and  terraces within  the  scheme;  this supported  a greater  degree  of  biodiversity  than provided  by  a  sedum  roof.

86.6

Mr  Small  (CAG) stated  that  a  greater  degree  of clarity  was  required  regarding  the  fenestration  now  proposed . Originally  a  bespoke  option  had  been indicated  whereas  standard  frames  were  now  proposed He  did  not  consider   that sufficient  detail  had  been  given to  determine  whether  this  solution  would  be  adequate or  not . Bearing  in  mind   that  the  original  option  had  been  preferred  by  officers.  Fenestration details were critical in his view as it   represented the “face” of a building.   

86.7

The Area  Planning  Manager, East  explained  that as  this  matter  had  previously  been  dealt  with  as  a  reserved  matter it  was  not  considered appropriate  or  proportionate  to  recommend  refusal,  given  that  the  solution  now  proposed  was  considered  acceptable. However  a  condition  could  be  added seeking final  approval  of  the  details.  Members   agreed that this should be done.

86.8

Councillor  Mrs  A Norman  expressed  her  support  for the  design   and  sought  confirmation  regarding  whether  the  levels   of  parking  proposed  were  considered  to  be  adequate. It  was  noted  that  that the  Traffic  Manager   was  satisfied  with  the  parking  arrangements  proposed  and that the  applicant  had  indicated  that  additional standard and disabled  parking  would be  provided   integral  to  continuing  works  on  site  should an  additional  need  to  identified .

86.9

A  vote  was  taken  and  Members  voted  unanimously  to  grant  planning  permission  on the  grounds set  out  below.

86.10

RESOLVED -  (1)That the Committee has  taken  into  consideration  and  agrees with  the  reasons for  the  recommendation set  out  in   paragraph 10 of  the  report and  resolves to   grant planning  permission  subject to  the  conditions  and  informatives set  out  in  the  report and to the  following additional  conditions  :

13.  Within  three months  of  the  date  of  this  permission or  unless  agreed  in  writing, detailed proposals  for  disabled  car parking associated  with the development hereby approved shall  be  submitted  for  approval in  writing  by  the Local  planning  authority.  The  proposals shall  be  implemented  in  full  prior to  the  first  occupation  of  the  development  hereby  approved  unless  otherwise  agreed  in  writing by  the  Local  Planning  Authority. Reason : To ensure adequate  parking  provision for  all  users  of  the  building  and  to  accord  with policy TR18  of  the  Brighton &  Hove Local Plan.  

14. Within  two  months  of  the  date  of  this  permission or  unless  otherwise  agreed  by  the  Local  Planning Authority,  full  details  of  the  windows  hereby  approved  to  an appropriate metric scale  shall  be  submitted  to  and  approved in  writing  by  the  Local Planning  Authority. Development  shall  be  carried  out  in  strict  accordance  with  the  approved  details . Reason :  To  ensure a satisfactory appearance  to  the  development  and  to comply  with  policy  QD1  of the  Brighton  &  Hove Local Plan.

(iii) DECISIONS ON MINOR APPLICATIONS WHICH VARY FROM THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT AS SET OUT IN THE PLANS LIST (MINOR APPLICATIONS) DATED 10 SEPTEMBER 2008

86.11

   There were none.

(iv) OTHER APPLICATIONS

86. 12

Application BH2007/03748, 58 Palmeira Avenue, Hove – Demolition of  existing  bungalow and  replacement  with  5  storey  over  basement  block  of  8  apartments with  underground  car parking  area.

86..13

The Senior Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation relative to the proposals. .Reference was  made   to  photographs  and  plans showing   the  relationship  between, and appearance  of,  the  proposed  scheme relative  to  blocks  of  flats  which  had  been  erected  to  the  south in  place  of  single  dwelling  houses and its  immediate  neighbours.  It should  be  noted  that the  area  contained  a mixture  of  dwelling  houses  and blocks of  flats. 

86.14

Councillor  Smart  sought  clarification regarding  measures  to  be  put in  place to  ensure  safe  storage  of  chlorinated  water  following  its  removal  as part  of  the  routine  maintenance  of  the  swimming  pool.  The  Planning  Officer  explained  that although  this  level  of  detail had  not  been  provided standard  conditions  had been applied which  were  used  when  a  swimming  pool  was  included  within  any  development.  These  requirements  would  need  to  be  met  by  the  applicant  as  would  the  requirements  of   the Environment Agency.

86.15

In  answer  to  questions by  Councillor  Steedman  it  was  explained  that notwithstanding  inclusion  of  a  swimming  pool, within  the  scheme  it  had  been  indicated  that it  would  achieve  a  level  4  assessment.  Councillor  Steedman  stated that he was unable to  support  the  scheme as  he  considered  that the  proposed  underground  parking  provision  ran  contrary  to  Guidance  Note  13  which  indicated  that there  was a  presumption  that  additional on  site  parking  was  not  required  in  developments  which  were  well  served  by  public  transport. The  application site  has  easy  assess  to  good  public  transport  links  and in  his  view  to  have  the  on  -  site  provision  proposed  would  encourage private  vehicle  use  and  would  give  rise  to  increased  traffic  congestion  in  the  vicinity.     

86.16

In  answer  to  questions of  Councillor  Mrs  Theobald  it  was  explained  that the  dimensions  of  the  swimming  pool  would  be  13m  by  4m  and that the  building  would  be   of  a brick  and  render  finish with  other  detailing  in  order  to  break  up  its  surface . The  render  would  be  off  white  /  cream to  provide  a  similar appearance  to  that used  on  the  blocks  to  the  south .

86.17

Councillor  Mrs  Theobald  stated  that whilst   the  provision  of  off -  street  parking  was welcomed ,  overall  she  considered  the development to be  ugly  too  high  and  overbearing  in  the  street  scene.  She  considered  that the  loss  of  dwelling  houses  in  Palmeira  avenue  was regrettable  and  had  spoilt  the  character  of  the  area.  She was unable to support the scheme.  Councillor Barnett concurred in that view.  Councillor  McCaffery considered  the  scheme  was  ugly  and was  in agreement  with  Councillor  Steedman that  it  was  inappropriate  to  provide  off -  street  parking  at this  location .      

86.18

Councillor  Smart  considered that the proposal  was   not  significantly  different  to  others  which  had  already  and been  built and  he  did  not  therefore  consider  it  appropriate  to  refuse  this  application. 

86.19

A  vote  was  taken and on a  vote  of 6  to  5  with  1  abstention planning  permission  was granted  on the  grounds set out  below .

86.20

RESOLVED -  That  the  Committee  has  taken into  consideration  and agrees  with the  reasons for  recommendations set  out  in Paragraph  8 of  the  report  and resolves  that it  is  minded  to  grant planning  permission subject  to  the  receipt  of  satisfactory amendments to  the  side  elevation;  no  objection from  the  Traffic  Manager and,  a  Section  106  Obligation  to  secure :

A  contribution of  £4,000 towards  the Sustainable  Transport Strategy and subject  to  the  conditions  and  informatives set  out  in  the  report.   

[Note 1: Councillors Barnett, Davey, McCaffery, Steedman and Mrs Theobald   voted that the application be refused].

[ Note 2 : Councillor  Kennedy  abstained  from voting  in  respect  of  the  above  application].

86.21

Application BH2007/03872, Willows Surgery,  Heath  Hill  Avenue,  Brighton – Demolition  of  existing  doctor’s  surgery  and  residential  accommodation.  Erection  of  a  new  doctor’s  surgery  with  five  self -  contained flats above (resubmission  of  BH2006/03331). 

86..22

The Area Planning Manager, East gave a detailed presentation relative  to  the planning  history  of  this  and  previous  applications  including the  previous application  which  had  been dismissed  at  appeal. It  was   considered  that the current  application which  was  now  of  two  storeys in  height  throughout would  comply  with  local plan  policy  and   that there  would  be  an  acceptable  relationship  between   the  development  site  and  its  neighbours .    

86.23

Mr   Bareham  spoke  on  behalf  of  the  applicant  in  support  of its application stating  that although there  was  a demand  for  the  surgery  as  one  which  was  local  to  residents  of  Moulsecoomb  and  Bevendean  it  could  not  be  sustained by  the  PCT  financially  without   the  proposed  enabling  development. Councillor  Meadows  spoke  in  her  capacity  as  a  Local  Ward  Councillor  setting  out her  concerns  regarding  the proposals. Whilst local  residents  wished  to  retain a  doctor’s  surgery  on  the  site  they  had  concerns  that  the  level  of  enabling  housing  proposed would  represent  overdevelopment  of  the  site . They  were  also  concerned  that the  existing  willow  tree  on   site  be  retained and  regarding  the  proposed access  /  egress  arrangements  proposed  bearing  in  mind  its close  proximity  to  a  very  busy  highway. It  was  also  considered  that the  sustainable  transport  elements  needed  reappraisal   and  that the  Section  106  Obligation  required  to  be  renegotiated.

86.24

Councillor  Steedman  sought  confirmation  regarding whether  or  not  the scheme  would  comply with  SPD  18  . The Development Control Manager explained that the SPD had not yet been adopted for  development  control  purposes..   

86.25

Councillor Davey sought clarification regarding on site parking arrangements.  Councillors  Barnet, Carden,   and  McCaffery  stated  that they  considered  more  parking  spaces  should  be  made available  for those  using  the  surgery . Councillors  Barnett  and  Mrs  Theobald suggested that one  of  the  spaces  currently  allocated  for  staff  parking  should  be designated for  disabled  use . Councillor  Barnet  considered  it  unrealistic to  provide  such  limited  parking , if  people  were  visiting  a  surgery  because  they  were  unwell  there  was  a  likelihood  they would  be  travelling  there  by  car. In answer  to  questions by  Councillor  Simson  the  Traffic Manager  explained  that   the  applicant  could  not  be  compelled  to provide  additional  parking  on  site  and  as  the  area was  not  included  as part  of  a  Controlled  Parking  Zone on  street  parking  was  available.          

86.26 

Councillor  Hamilton  sought  clarification as  to  whether  or  not   the  existing  surgery  was  to  be  expanded  given that  the  current  practice  appeared to  be  to  merge  existing  surgeries  into  purpose  built  polyclinics ,  as  had  been  the  case with  his  own  surgery.  It  had  been  done  in  that instance  and  elsewhere  in  the city  without  the  need  for  it  to  be  funded  by  enabling  development . In  this  instance  it  did  not  appear  that  the  new  surgery  would  have  result  in  any  significant increase  in  capacity.  

86.27  

Councillor  Mrs Theobald  considered  that all  possible  attempts should  be  made  to  ensure  that the  existing willow  tree  on  site  would  be  retained  and  sought  clarification  regarding its  present  condition . The  Council’s  arboriculturist explained  that the  independent  consultant  employed  by  the  applicant  was  well  respected  in  such  matters  and  that  her  own  view  was  that  although  regrettable that the  tree  required  to  be  removed it  was  in  decline and  would  eventually die  . In answer  to further  questions  she  explained  that  the  remaining  lifespan of  the  tree  could  not  be  determined  and  that it  could  ultimately  linger for  up  to  10  years,  it  would  require  replacement  within  that time  .  Only  limited  protection  works  were  available  bearing  in  mind  that  it s  root  system  probably  extended  well  under  the  existing  roadway  and  that it  could  continue  for  some because  of  the  moisture  and nutrients  stored  in  its  roots.  Construction works were likely to hasten that pre existing decline.   

86.28

Councillors Barnett, Hamilton  and  Mrs Theobald  considered  that the  tree  should  be  retained  and  protected  for  the  remainder  of  its natural  life .  But  following  debate  it  was confirmed  that if  the  tree  were  to be  removed  now it  would  be  replaced  by  two suitable  healthy  specimens with  a far  longer  lifespan. Once  the development   works  had  been  completed  however, the  applicant  could not  be  compelled  to  replace  the  existing  tree  at  an  indeterminate future date.

86.29

Councillors  Kennedy, Mrs Norman  and Simson  considered  that although  loss  of  the  tree  was  regrettable  replacement  with  two  younger  healthier  specimens  was appropriate. Councillor Mrs Theobald put  a  request  that a vote  be  taken. A  vote was  proposed  by  Councillor Mrs  Theobald  and  seconded  by  Councillor  Hamilton  that Condition  9  be  removed  and  that requirements  be  put  into  place  to  protect  the  exiting  tree. A  vote  was  taken  and  that  proposal   was  lost  on  a  vote  of 9 to 3.  Members  were  in  agreement  however ,  that  a  specific  condition  be  added relative  to  the  hours  during  which  construction  works  could  be  carried  out  in  order  to  protect  neighbouring  amenity . The  details  of  this  are  set  out  in  the  resolution  below.

86.30

A  vote  was  taken  and  Members on a  vote  of  9  with 3  abstentions  planning  permission  be granted on  the  grounds  set  out  below. 

86.31

RESOLVED  -  That the  Committee  has  taken  into  consideration  and agrees with  the  reasons  for  the  recommendation set  out in  Paragraph 8 and  resolves  that it  is  minded  to  grant  planning  permission subject  to  the  completion  of  a  Section  106  Obligation  to  secure  : 

(a)  A  financial contribution  of  £5,000 towards  the  sustainable  Transport Strategy (to  be  used  towards  accessibility  bus  stops,  pedestrian facilities  and cycling  infrastructure within  the  area) ;  and

(b)   An  off site  temporary replacement  Doctors  Surgery for  the  period between  demolition and the  opening  of  the  proposed facilities  . (to  ensure a  continuity of  healthcare  facilities  in  the  Bevendean area) and  subject to  the  conditions  and  informatives  set  out  in  the  report and  subject  to the following  additional  conditions :

15. Notwithstanding the  approved  drawings,  revised  proposals for  the  on  site  disabled car parking  associated with  the development  shall  be  submitted for  approval in  writing by  the  Local  Planning  Authority.  The  proposals shall  be  implemented  in  full prior  to the first occupation of  the  development hereby  approved unless  otherwise  agreed in  writing  by  the  Local Planning Authority. Reason : To  ensure adequate  parking provision for  all  users of  the  building and to  accord  with  policy  TR 18  of  the  Brighton & Hove Local  Plan.

16.  Construction work in connection with  the  development hereby approved  shall  only  take place  between  the  hours  of  0.800 – 18.00 Mondays to  Fridays and  0.800 -  13.00  Saturdays .  No construction work  shall  take  place  on  Sundays  or  Bank Holidays ;  Reason : To

Protect the  residential amenity  of  neighbouring properties  and  to  comply with  policyQD27 of  the Brighton &  Hove  Local Plan.  

86.32

Application BH2008/02204, 3  East  Drive, Brighton – Addition of  solar  thermal  panels to  side  elevation of  front  gable .

86.33

 The Senior Planning Officer  gave  a  presentation explaining that refusal  was  recommended given  that  the  proposed panels  would  be  located  on  the  front  roof   slope  within  the  conservation  area  and  would be  clearly visible  from  Queen’s  Park  which  was  listed  as being  a  park  of  special historical interest.  

86. 34

Mr  Hewitt  spoke  on  behalf  of  the  applicant  in  support  of  their  application.  He  referred to  other  properties  on  the  other  side (west)  of  the  park   which were  similar  or  identical  to  the   application  property  in  East  Drive.  Photographs of these properties were displayed.  Mr Hewitt  also  referred  to  the Open  Houses weekend,  sponsored  by  the  Carbon  Trust   which  had  taken  place  earlier in  the  year  and  to  the  property  located at  6  Southdown  Avenue in  Brighton  which  was  located    in  a  conservation area and  had received awards for  its  sympathetic  inclusion  of  sustainable  and  energy  savings measures within  an  older  property. Councillor  Fryer  spoke  in  her  capacity  as  a  Local  Ward  Councillor setting out her  support for the  proposed  scheme. Stating  that   in  her  view  the proposal  was  acceptable and  no  different  from other  treatments  to  houses  in  East  Drive.  The  application  site  was  located  at  the  extreme  eastern  corner of  the  park  and  she  was  of  the  view  that  the  panel  would  not be  highly  visible  either  from  the  park  itself  or  from  the  adjoining  highway.  In  her  view  the  rooflights  which  had  been  fitted  to  a number  of  properties  were  far more  prominent.   

86.35

Councillor Steedman  concurred  with  the  views  expressed  by  Councillor Fryer stating  that  he  did  not  consider  that the proposal would  be  prominent  within the  street  scene  or  any  different from   in  its  appearance from panels  on properties  located  in  West Drive  or  the property  cited  at  Southdown  Avenue .      

86.36

The Senior Planning  Officer  responded  that  she was  not  aware  of  the  other  properties  referred  to  the  terms  of  any  permissions  given , or  of  any  planning  permissions  granted  in  respect  of  them.  The Development Control Manager confirmed that was the case. Councillor  Smart  stated  that in  his  view  the  position  was  not clear  cut   as  was  indicated   by  the  applicants representative . It  appeared  to  him  that  on  the  other  properties  referred  to  panels  had  been fitted towards the  side  rear  of  the  property   rather  than  at the  front .  Councillor Simson concurred in that view.  Whilst  fully  supporting  sustainability  initiatives   she was unable  to  support  this  proposal  given its  location  in  a  conservation  area .Councillor   Mrs Norman  enquired whether  it  would  be  possible  to  erect  panels  to the  rear  and  it  was  explained  that the  proposed  location  had been  chosen  in  order  to maximise on  energy  gain .  Councillor Mrs Norman felt unable to support the erection of panels at that location.

86.37

Mr Small (CAG)  stated  that irrespective  of  treatments elsewhere  which may or  may not  have  received  planning  permission this  application should  be  considered  on  its  merits.  If  it  was  the  Council’s  policy to  preserve and enhance  the  character and  appearance  of  conservation  areas and  to refuse  provision  of  solar panels  on prominent  frontages,  this was a material planning  consideration. 

86.38

Councillor  Davey  considered  that it  was  vital  to encourage  sustainability As  energy  costs  were  soaring  and  it  was  recognised  that the carbon  footprint  used  needed  to  reduce  dramatically  he  was  of  the  view   that these  matter  needed  to  move  forward . Councillor  McCaffery  stated  that whilst there  was a  need  to  protect the City’s  architectural  heritage,  there  was  a  need  to  improve  sustainability .She was  in  agreement  the  proposals  would  be no  more  obtrusive within  the  street  scene than existing  rooflights.  

86.39

Councillor  Hamilton  stated  that in  his  view  the apparent contradiction between the  Council’s  support   for  sustainability   and  the  issue  of  whether   or not  solar panels could  be  provided  needed  to  be  addressed.  Given  that there  was  a  recognised need to  reduce  the  carbon  footprint of all  individuals  and  properties  it  was  important  to  address  the  issues  raised . A  balance  had  to  be  sought and  it  was  not  always  possible  to  be  purist  in  respecting all architectural  heritage  at  the  expense  of other  overarching needs such  as  energy  generation and conservation. Older  dwellings  had  been  altered  over  time ,  none  of them  would  originally  have  had  television  aerials  for  example .  Debate  needed  to  take  place  and  policy  decisions  made  in  respect  of  the  issues  raised  by  this  application.           

86.40

A vote was taken and on a vote of  6  to  3 with  3  abstentions  planning  permission  was  refused  on  the grinds  set  out  below .

86.41

RESOLVED- That  the  Committee  has taken  into  consideration  and  agrees with  the  reasons for  the  recommendation set  out  in  Paragraph 8  of  the  report and resolves  to  refuse  planning  permission for  the  reasons  set  out  below :

1.  The  proposed  panels,  by  virtue  of  their size and  positioning  within the  front  roofslope would  appear as  an  incongruous feature  unrelated to  the  overall  design  of  the roof and  front  elevation  and  would  detract from  the  wider  appearance  of  the  Queen’s  Park Conservation  Area and  would harm the  setting  of  the  historic Queen’s  Park.  As  such  the  proposal  is  contrary to  policies  QD1,  QD14,  HE6 and  HE11 of  the  Brighton &  Hove  Local  Plan and  to  Supplementary  Planning  Guidance  Note  SPGH1  :  Roof  Alterations  and  Extensions.

Informatives :

1.  This decision is based on drawing no.23.6.08Rev3 received on 25 June 2008 and drawing no.  7.7.08 Rev1 and  the  site  location plan  received  on  8  July  2008,  and  the  supporting information  received  on  20  June  2008 .

 [ Note  1 :  Councillors Davey,  Kennedy  and Steedman  voted  that that  planning  permission  be  granted]. 

[Note 2:  Councillors Carden, Hamilton and McCaffery abstained from voting].

86.42

Application BH2008/01604, 4  Lenham Road, Saltdean – Roof  alterations and  enlargement  to  form two  rooms in  roof (retrospective)

86.43

The Senior Planning Officer gave a presentation detailing the proposals.  Details were also given relative to the two previously refused applications. The  visual  impact  of  the  scheme, its  effects  relative  to  neighbouring amenity and the  other  grounds  for  the  previous refusals  were  considered  to  have  been  addressed  and  the  scheme  was  therefore  recommended for  approval.   

86.44

Councillor  Mrs  Theobald  stated  that she  considered the  scheme  to  be  totally  unacceptable and  was concerned  that works  had  been commenced  and  virtually  completed  in  advance  of  receiving  any planning approval.  She  also  expressed  concern  that the application  had  not  been  processed  within  the  8  week  target  period.  Councillor Barnett concurred in that view.       

86.45

The  Development  Control  Manager  responded  stating  that whilst   there  were target  dates for  processing  incoming  applications, the  department  had  had  to  deal  with many  applications. The  numbers  currently  being  submitted had  not  reduced  as  a  result of  the  current  economic  climate.Whilst every  endeavour  was  made  to  facilitate the  early  consideration  of  applications  this  was  not  always  possible with in  the  target date  which  was  that rather  than  a  legal  requirement.  It  was  not  a  criminal offence  for  work  to  commence  in  advance  of  planning  permission  being  granted .  An applicant might choose do so for a number of reasons. Members’ unhappiness that works  had  been carried  out  without  the  relevant  planning  permissions  being  in  place was  not  a  material  planning  consideration.             

86.46

Councillor  Kennedy agreed  that whilst  regrettable  and  very  frustrating  for  Members   when works  were  undertaken in  the  absence  of  planning  permission(s)  and  in  the  face  of  agreed  procedures,  she  did  recognise  that this  did  not  of  itself  constitute  grounds  for  refusal.

86.47

Councillors  McCaffery  and Smart  sought  clarification regarding any  sanctions which  were  available  to  the  Council. The  Development  Control  Manager  explained  that there  were  none  except  in  instances  where  permission  was  refused and subsequent  enforcement  action  was  taken.  Councillor  McCaffery  sought  information (if  available) relative  to  the  no of  applications  where  were  had  commenced  prior  to  all  necessary  permissions  being  in  place and  as  to  the  number  granted  or   refused . The  development  Control  Manager explained  that information on  the  number  of  retrospective  applications  submitted  was  not  available.

86.48

A  vote  was  taken  and  on  a  vote  of 5 to  3  with  4  abstentions   planning  permission was  granted  on  the  grounds set  out  below . 

86.49

RESOLVED -  That  the  Committee  has taken  into  consideration and  agrees  with  thereasons for  the  recommendation set  out in  Paragraph 8  of  the  report and  resolves  to  grant  planning  permission subject  to  the  conditions  and  informatives  set  out  in  the  report .

[Note 1: Councillors Barnett, Mrs Norman and Mrs Theobald voted that the application be refused].

[ Note 2 : Councillors Davey,  Kennedy,  McCaffery  and  Steedman  abstained  from voting  in respect  of  the  above  application].

86.50

Application  BH2008/01850,  Plots  2 and  3  Land  at  Royles  Close, Rottingdean – erection of  two  new  3  bedroom  houses.

86.51

The Senior Planning Officer gave a composite presentation detailing the proposals those  relative to  the  two  subsequent  applications relating  to land  adjacent  to 21 and land  adjacent to 6 Royles Close  and setting out the reasons for the recommendation.  It was  noted  that extant  approvals  granted  in  1968  in  respect  of  all  three  plots could  be  built  in  the  absence  of  any  other  permissions  being  granted. The applicant  had  sought  to  update those original permissions  in  bringing forward the  three  the  applications  before  the  Committee  that day .   The  Planning  Officer  highlighted  the  points  of  difference  between the  earlier  schemes  and  those  that had  now  been  brought  forward. It  was  also  explained  that measures  would  be  put  into  place  in  order  to  protect  the  existing  trees  and  screening on  site  and  to replace  the  one  protected tree  which  would need  to  be  removed.   

86.52

Mr  Thomas spoke  on  behalf  of  neighbouring   residents  setting  out  their  objections  and  those  of  Rottingdean  Parish  Council  and the  Rottingdean  Preservation Society  to  the  scheme.  In  their  view  the  proposed  development  would  be  of  a  design  and massing  that constituted  an  overdevelopment  of  the site. In  their  view  the  submitted  floorplans  were  bigger  than  those  previously  approved  and  they  queried  the  accuracy  of  the  distances  indicated  between  the  development  and the boundaries of existing  neighbouring  properties.  Mrs  Thomas  spoke  on  behalf  of  the  applicants  in  support  of  their  application. It  was  explained  that the  applicant  had sought  to  update  the  original  applications and  had  sought advice both  at  the  pre  and post application  stages to  address  the  concerns of objectors  and  to  liaise  fully with  officers  of  the  planning department  in  order  to  draw up  an  acceptable scheme. 

86.53

The  Planning Officer  responded  to  queries  raised  by  the  applicant  relative  to  distances between  and relative to  configuration  of  the  plots  indicating  the  distances  involved  .  In  answer  to  questions  by  Councillor  Smart  it  was  explained  that  although  the  widths  of  the  garages  had  been  reduced  they  would  still  be  of  an  adequate  single  garage  width .

86.54

Councillor  Hamilton  sought  clarification  regarding   the  height  and  configuration  of  the  proposed  development  within  the context  of  the  street  compared  with  the  properties  facing  it  from  the  opposite  side  of  the  road.  He  stated  that it appeared  to  him,  from  the  photographs shown  that  although  of  the  same  height, the  properties  which  were  opposite  would  appear  higher  within  the  streets scene  as  they were built  on  higher  ground..      

86.55

 In  answer  to  questions by Councillor  Mrs  Theobald  it  was  explained  that the  additional  dormer  windows  at  first  floor  level would  be  obscurely  glazed  and  inward  opening  as  they  related  either  to  bathrooms  or  en- suites  or  secondary  bedroom  windows .  The  applicant  had  agreed  to conditions  to  that effect   in  order  to  mitigate  against  any  potential  overlooking . 

86.56

 A vote was taken and Members voted unanimously that planning permission be granted on the grounds set out below.   

86.57

RESOLVED -   That the  Committee  has taken  into consideration and  agrees  with  the   reasons  for  the recommendation set  out  in  paragraph 8  of  the  report and  resolves  to  grant  planning  permission subject  to  the Conditions  and  Informatives  set  out  in  the  report.

86.58

Application BH2008/01126,  Land  Adjacent to  21  Royles Close,  Rottingdean -  Erection of  1  detached chalet  bungalow at land  adjacent  to  number  21.

86.59

A  vote  was  taken and   Members  voted  unanimously   that  planning  permission  be  granted  on  the  grounds  set  out  below.

86.41

RESOLVED -  That the  Committee  has  taken  into consideration  and  agrees wit  the  reasons for  the  recommendation set  out  in  Paragraph 8 of  the  report  and  resolves  to  grant  planning permission subject  to  the  conditions  and  informatives set out  in  the  report.  

86.42

Application BH2008/01114,  Land  Adjacent to  6  Royles  Close,  Rottingdean – Erection of  1  detached  chalet  bungalow at  land  adjacent  to  6  Royles Close.

86.43

A  vote  was  taken  and  Members  voted  unanimously  that planning permission  be  granted on the  grounds set out  below .

86.44

RESOLVED -  That  the  Committee has  taken  into  consideration  and  agrees  with  the  reasons  for  the  recommendation set  out  in  Paragraph 8  of  the  report  and resolves  to  grant  planning  permission subject  to  the  conditions and  informatives  set  out  in  the  report . 

(v) DECISIONS ON APPLICATIONS DELEGATED TO THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT

86.45

RESOLVED – Those details of the applications determined by the Director of Environment under delegated powers be noted.

[Note 1: All decisions recorded in this minute are subject to certain conditions and reasons recorded in the Planning Register maintained by the Director of Environment. The register complies with the legislative requirements].

[Note 2 : A list of representations, received by the Council after the Plans List reports had been submitted for printing had been circulated to Members on the Friday preceding the meeting. (For copy see minute book). Where representations were received after that time they would be reported to the Chairman and Deputy Chairman and it would be at their discretion whether these should (in exceptional cases), be reported to the Committee. This in accordance with resolution 147.2 of the then, Sub Committee held on 23 February 2005].