Agenda item - BH2020/03667 - 48 Arundel Drive East, Saltdean, Brighton BN2 8SL - Householder Planning Consent

skip navigation and tools

Agenda item

BH2020/03667 - 48 Arundel Drive East, Saltdean, Brighton BN2 8SL - Householder Planning Consent


1.    The Planning manager introduced the report.




2.    Paul Lenton spoke to the committee on behalf of eight objectors and state that the development would have a material affect on the neighbours under policies QD14 and 27. There is no evidence of any bungalows with ridge heights extended by 1.5m. The proposals were out of keeping with the bungalow and the materials would be out of keeping with the area. The development would lead to loss of amenities for neighbour’s, loss of daylight, sunlight, privacy, all enjoyed since 1950s and will have an impact on the wellbeing of the neighbours. The scheme contravenes policies QD14 and 27. The committee are requested to reject the application and protect the community.


3.    Ward Councillor Mears spoke to the committee and stated that the site was very steep, and this did not show on the site plan. The development would be very close to the neighbouring properties and would very much affect the amenities of neighbours. The scheme would be detrimental to resident’s wellbeing. The committee were asked to consider the application carefully.


4.    The case officer informed the committee that one further objection had been received and consultation had been carried out correctly.


Questions for officers


5.    Councillor Fishleigh was informed that policies QD14 and 27 were part of the 2005 Local Plan and covered extensions and alterations criteria and the protection of amenities to neighbours. The councillor was also informed that the was considered to be not breach of policy. It was also noted that site visits were not taking place during the COVID-19 lockdown. No objector’s photographs had been received by the case officer and it was considered that sufficient had been supplied to make an assessment.




6.    Councillor Childs had undertaken a drive-by and noted the area was diverse and considered there would be no damage to amenities. The councillor supported the application.


7.    Councillor Fishleigh considered a site visit should have been undertaken. The councillor was against the application.


8.    Councillor Henry noted that councillors had not contacted the Planning manager to request a site visit by councillors.


9.    Councillor Theobald considered the proposals too big for site and top heavy. The councillor was against the application.


10.Councillor Miller considered the street scene elevation not to work with no stepping down and this would change the street scene. The development is not considered to be good and the councillor stated that they were against the application.


11.A vote was taken, and the committee voted by 6 to 3 to grant planning permission. (Councillor Yates had left the meeting and did not take part in the discussions or decision making process).


12.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.


Supporting documents:


Brighton & Hove City Council | Hove Town Hall | Hove | BN3 3BQ | Tel: (01273) 290000 | Mail: | how to find us | comments & complaints