Agenda item - BH2012/03222 - 5 Roedean Heights - Full Planning Permission

Demolition of existing house and construction of 7 residential apartments with new access from Roedean Road.

RECOMMEDATION – REFUSE

Demolition of existing house and construction of 7 residential apartments with new access from Roedean Road.

Presentation from Officer(s)

(1)                   The Area Planning Manager, Zachary Ellwood, introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to plans, photographs, elevational drawings and an artist impression. Information was highlighted on the Late List and it was noted that since the publication of the agenda the applicant had lodged an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate against non-determination and the Committee were asked to give an indication of their view had they been in a position to determine the application; as such the recommended had been changed to ‘minded to refuse’. The application was for the construction of 7 flats, and the site abutted the boundary of the South Downs National Park (SDNP). The applicant had submitted drawings to indicate that the proposed development would serve as a transition line between the house to the east and the larger development to the west – Ocean Heights. The proposals would be for access from both Roedean Heights and Roedean Road to the south – this would involve cutting through the bank, and included an underground car park. Contextual elevations were used to show the difference in height between the proposals and Ocean Heights to the east, and the house to the west. The applicant had submitted photomontages to show that the visual impact reduced the further way from the development.

(2)                   It was noted that the character of Roedean Heights was very different from Roedean Road, and consisted of 5 large detached properties, and Officers were concerned that this application would impact on the distinctive character of the road. Furthermore the scale and bulk failed to address the area, and it was felt the development would harm views from the SDNP. The principle of the new access was acceptable, but the applicant had not been able to submit sufficient details to suggest that the access would not harm the area. Finally it had not demonstrated that the proposed development would meet required levels of sustainability, and Officers were not satisfied this could be done without redesign. The application was recommended to be minded to refuse for the reasons set out in the report, and the amended reasons on the Late List.

Public Speakers and Questions

(3)                   Mr Copping spoke in objection to the scheme on behalf of local residents and the residents association. He was aware that CJ Planning had submitted a representation against the application, but they were unable to attend and he would be speaking on their behalf. The development would have a detrimental impact on surrounding and adjoining areas, and the character of Roedean Heights was residential with family sized dwellings; flats would be an exception to this. There was concern in relation to highway safety and the Committee were asked to support the Officer recommendation.

(4)                   Councillor Mears spoke in her capacity as the Local Ward Councillor. She stated that the previous speaker had covered many of her own concerns, and she noted that the application just fell short of the number of units necessary for affordable homes. The access to Roedean Road was considered dangerous, and would be a concern for pedestrians as the entrance cut through the bank.

(5)                   It was noted that the applicant’s agent had registered to speak in support, but was not present at the Committee meeting.

Questions for Officers, Debate and Decision Making Process

(6)                   Councillor Hyde noted there had been reference to Ocean Heights, and she noted the distinction between Ocean Heights on Roedean Road, a busy road, and the proposals on Roedean Heights a small road with a few detached houses. She stated she would support the Officer recommendation.

(7)                   Councillor Carol Theobald stated she thought the proposals were more unacceptable than Ocean Heights.

(8)                   Councillor Hawtree stated he was not averse to mixture of styles, but did not feel this was appropriate given the setting.

(9)                   A vote was taken and planning permission was minded to refuse on a vote of 10 to 1.

192.4    RESOLVED - That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation, and the policies and guidance set out in the report and resolves to be MINDED TO REFUSE planning permission for the reason set out below.

  i.                       The scale, bulk and appearance of the proposed building is excessive, fails to respect the immediate and wider context of the application site, and would appear as an incongruous addition to the area, out of keeping with the prevailing character of the locality. The proposal would harm strategic views from the South Downs National Park to the north of the site, and from Marine Drive to the south / east of the site. The proposed development would create a more built up or ‘urbanised’ edge to the National Park boundary by itself and in conjunction with Ocean Heights, in contrast to the existing dwelling and neighbouring dwellings along Roedean Heights which provide a less intrusive and developed boundary to the urban area. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies HO4, QD1, QD2, QD3, QD4, NC7 and NC8 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

ii.                       The proposed building would have an overbearing impact and create a sense of enclosure when viewed from the dwellings and gardens to either side. Increased overshadowing of neighbouring dwellings and garden areas would also be caused. The proposed development is therefore contrary to policy QD27 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

iii.                       The information submitted regarding the proposed underground car park, vehicular access and any clearing and regrading works required to provide clear sight lines, is incomplete and in parts contradictory. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that these elements of the proposal would result in an acceptable appearance and would not cause an increased highway safety risk. Furthermore the required ground works could result in unstable land and no technical information such as details of retaining walls has been submitted. Based upon the information submitted the proposed development is therefore contrary to policies QD1, QD2, QD3, QD4, SU8 and TR7 of Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

iv.                       The proposed development would not provide a level of sustainability which would adequately address the requirements of policy SU2 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan and the guidance set out in SPD08 ‘Sustainable Building Design’. Sufficient justification has not been provided to demonstrate that the level of sustainability recommended in SPD08 could not reasonably be met.

Note 1: Councillor Ken Norman was not presented during the consideration and vote on this application.

Note 2: The application was referred to the Planning Inspectorate for appeal on the grounds of non-determination. The Committee were asked to express a view on the application had they been in the position to determine it.