Agenda item - BH2021/00119 - 11 Arundel Drive West, Saltdean, Brighton BN2 8SJ - Householder Planning Consent

1.         The Planning Manager introduced the report and gave a detailed presentation using enhanced visuals.

            Speakers

2.         Mr Woodward spoke in his capacity as a neighbouring resident setting out his objections to the application. Mr Woodward and the other objectors considered that it was regrettable that this application had been brought before the Committee for consideration without a site visit having taken place in order to fully appreciate the scheme in the context of the neighbouring street scene and neighbouring development. There was an error as a window was missing from the submitted plans, there were concerns that there could be other inaccuracies. The existing property was a substantial sized family house and the proposed scheme would have a negative impact on neighbouring amenity.

3.         Mr Zinzan, spoke on behalf of the applicant in support of their application. The existing development did not provide good use of the available floorspace and the proposed scheme sought to address that sympathetically. It was not considered that this scheme would result in a greater degree of overshadowing or overlooking as a result of the roof being raised.

            Questions of Officers

4.         Councillor Fishleigh queried why a site visit had not been undertaken, stating that she had visited the site herself. It was explained that notwithstanding the current arrangements in place in relation to site visits, Members had been offered the opportunity to visit the site or for a virtual site visit to take place but that had not been taken up.

5.         Councillor Fishleigh also asked whether it would be possible to condition that replacement roof tiles identical to those currently in situ were used. It was confirmed, however that this would not be deemed to be reasonable. The Legal Adviser to the Committee confirmed that as the application site was not located in a conservation area it was unlikely that imposition of such a condition would be upheld in the event of an appeal.

            Debate

6.         Councillor Theobald was in agreement that a virtual site visit would have been beneficial in addition to the photographs provided by the objectors.

7.         Councillor Janio asked for confirmation regarding the specification of the rooflights to be provided and it was explained that they were of a type which would not impact of neighbouring amenity.

8.         Councillor Fishleigh stated that the existing building located in her ward was a beautiful Mediterranean style house. Changes proposed were not sympathetic and would in her view have a detrimental impact on neighbouring amenity

9.         Councillor Shanks concurred with what had been said but regrettably did not consider that there were sufficient grounds to refuse the application, especially as much of the work proposed could have been carried out under permitted development rights.

10.       A vote was taken and on a vote of 6 to 3 to 1 planning permission was granted.

124.8    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 set out in the report.