Agenda item - BH2020/02590 - 8 Eileen Avenue, Saltdean

1.    The Planning manager introduced the application.

Speakers

2.    Mr Moore spoke as an objector and noted that 18 neighbours have objected, and the report had conflicting information regarding the flats in the development. It appears that noise has not been taken into consideration and this is not the view of the neighbours. There will be a substantial increase in traffic as a result of the proposal, as well as more bins and other associated items. It was considered that a site visit should have taken place as the scale of the development will have an impact on the community. Anna Rowe spoke as an objector and noted that they considered two drawings to be incorrect as the proposed extension will be 1m higher than the neighbouring property. The outside private patio to number 1 will be too close to neighbours. It is noted that residents object to the application as there will be more bins on the road and this will be anti-social.

Questions for speakers

3.    Councillor Fishleigh was informed by Anna Rowe that the drawings should show the proposal closer to the neighbouring properties. It was noted that the proposed French doors will be close to the neighbour, allowing noise to reach the neighbours bedroom and to open onto the street. The proposed bin storage area will be too close to the road and the balcony for unit 1 will be at the front of the property.

4.    Councillor Miller was informed that the neighbour’s living room is on the first floor and will be adversely affected by the frosted glass windows on the eastern elevation.

5.    The agent informed the committee that boundary hedges would be planted as well as around the bin store and the side windows are to be obscure glazed.

Questions for officers

6.    Councillor Miller was informed that the side elevation windows will be obscure glazed and there are other front balconies in Saltdean. It was noted that the site had not been used for some years and the principal of flats amongst houses has been established in Saltdean.

7.    Councillor Fishleigh was informed that no site visits had taken place to this site. It was noted that with regard to the drawings being incorrect, the case officer confirmed that sufficient information had been received to determine the application.

Debate

8.    Councillor Henry considered they understood the neighbour’s views however the mix of flats and houses was usual for other areas. The councillor was pleased to see the regeneration of the site and considered the mix of dwellings to be good. The councillor supported the application.

9.    Councillor Childs considered the plan to be fine and the proposal was not an overdevelopment, and this was not the worst the councillor had seen. The councillor supported the application.

10. Councillor Miller noted the site had been empty a long time, however they noted the overlooking issues from balconies and windows and noted that there were no other front balconies on Eileen Avenue. The councillor considered that flats were usually near shops. The councillor did not support the application.

11. Councillor Fishleigh noted no site visit had taken place and considered that not to be good. The councillor considered two drawings to be incorrect as the neighbour’s house had not been drawn correctly and the proposals were an overdevelopment of the site.

12. Councillor Theobald expressed concerns that a site visit had not taken place and noted that 18 neighbours had objected. The councillor considered the proposed flats to be overbearing and inappropriate in the road and not right for the area. The neighbours will be impacted. A family home would be more appropriate. The councillor did not support the application.

13. Councillor Shanks considered that the neighbours were currently next to an empty site and the development was a good use of that site. The councillor supported the site.

14. Councillor Yates recognised the neighbour’s concerns; however, the councillors should vote on the proposal before the committee. The councillor supported the application.

15. Councillor Janio did not support the application.

16. Councillor Littman stated that site visits were not taking place during the pandemic lockdown and this was a service decision to protect officers and residents. The councillor did not consider it appropriate that committee members should call for change.

17. The Planning Manager reiterated that the plans for the site were correct and officers felt they had sufficient information and recommended the application for approval.

18. A vote was taken and, on a vote of 6 to 4 the Committee agreed to grant the application.

19. 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.